The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/10/2005 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, November 10, 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. 528 East College Street 2. 229 South Johnson Street 3. 821 South 7`h Avenue 4. 315 Brown Street B. Minutes for October 13, 2005 4. Other 5. Adjourn 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 .......(",1 .......:. Njl Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgov.org/HPhondbook. G] 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) t Owner ...........J< �/t !° :. Phone .............. .... -X` I. % ...... Address...... ..... .......................... ........... I.......... ..... r ? ;- ............................. email............................................................................................... ❑ Contractor................................................................................. Address......................................................................................... Phone............................................................................................. email ................. jr Consultant .., ..., :F.:.'1 r' "x � , ., .<. ..... ,t.i ?t Address................................./ ........................................... ......................................................................................................... ✓ { 7 Phone.......�� ..... ° 6.... ..... r......................................... ......................... J/.......r...G!..:......:..,? ...................... .............. . .w. ........... 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 I J Address of property � 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 (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 . ................ A.. IL....... ............ 1,2 , ............. ................................................................ .......................... ........................................................................................................... ........ ................... ..... ....................................... ..................... ........................ ....... ...... ..... ................................ ........................................................... .... .... ....... ..... .... .... ... ......................................... ...... ............................................................................................................................................... ................................................ ................... ......... ...................................................................................................................... .......................................... .................................................. ��_..._..._��......._��..._..._............_��........_.......................'.................... ..............._......'....................................._.... Materials cmbeused .......... ...................... ............................................................. Exterior appearance changes l .................................................................. ........................ ............. x��.— ........ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -'--'-----------------'-------_---__--_----_--_'---_--'------------_--_ --................. ............................ .......................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ...... :/,2......... ........................................................ ...... .................................................................... mdxanmpHmmmmuAvp.p6a OWS VI 'All) VM01 11311S 393110) '3 81S .E NOIDUISNO)3N HAOd DUDISH GIO]Vng - •- - o c t -------------- I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 i I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 t I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I ri ss OVZZS VI Ill) VM01 13311S 393110) 1 US W� s m NOIDmISNOM HNOd 3A3aiSH 0v0jv(18 _ e 1 g r L Staff Report November 10, 2005 Historic Review for 528 E College Street District: College Green Ilistoric District Classification: Contributing Applicants, I-Ielen and ILevin Burford, are requesting approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a revised plan for the reconstruction of the back porch and shed at their property, 528 East College Street, a contributing structure in the College Green Historic District. In the revised proposal the position and dimensions of the shed and column spacing for the porch have been changed. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Altera tions 4.9 Porches Staff Comments The back porch before has been reconstructed and/or altered many times since it was built originally. The reconstruction proposed in this application, per the applicant, is closely based on the last known design and material. The application indicates that originally (last known) the shed was positioned such that the condenser for the air - conditioner can be accommodated. The dimensions for the shed remain similar to the shed that was part of the previously approved application, and the column spacing in this proposal is adjusted accordingly. Staff recommends approval. AMplication for Historic Rt view 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. e_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) Owner.... ........t..tfa::....1C.................. Phone....;.?:........:?............................................................. Address... .f..L.4.... t:...... ....... ...................I............ email....................r.......................................................................... i ,0 Contractor....;. J..z.:i..t:......... .:`. r:.!:.................................. Address.......................................................................................... ......................................................................................................... ,'� Phone .... ,w%�I le.:.....`j .........�...f:........................................................... email............................................................................................... ❑ Consultant................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... Phone............................................................................................. email............................................................................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Y Site plan ❑ Floor plans ❑ Building elevations Y 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 ' ......`............... Useof property .... S....... D................................................................ Date constructed (if known) ..... 1.cj...:?.k::......:............................. Historic Designation ❑ This property is a local historic landmark OR ❑" This property is located in the: ❑ Brown Street Historic District / ila' 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) 12f 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 ..... ..... 4..... �'� Viz, 6..3. . t < < � �...:. ..... ..... 4. ;.��..t.�t ......... �..v.......... `l :..... .................. ....... ...... ;y..................... ...I..... J.. ............ .� ...... i...................................................................................................................................................................................... ........... ............... ...................................................... ............................. ...................................................................................................... I.............................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... ....................................................................... I............................ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Materials to be used Exterior appearance changes .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................................................................................................................................................................................I......... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ . ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................... :............... ..................... ................... .......................................................... ........................ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................I.................... ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65 5 r- kD 'E-,l r ' 41 h # i d' V' d 4 y v 011s r . hff 4� g `l I � i� Staff Report November 10, 2005 Historic Review for 229 S Johnson Street District: College Green Historic District Classification: Contributing Applicant, Jeff Clark, is requesting approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed demolition at 229 South Johnson Street, a contributing property in the College Green Historic District. The applicant intends to demolish a garage to replace it with at grade parking spaces. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments The house was built in ca. 1910 with the influence of Queen Ann Revival style. The construction date for the single - car garage is not known. If compared with styles prevalent in this and other older Iowa City neighborhoods it appears to be built in 1920s or 1930s. The garage appears to have borrowed some stylistic features from the craftsman style particularly the (gable) rooflines and window proportions and wide trim. The garage also has shiplap style siding and simple panel door, both commonly found on such garages. Although simple and commonly found, such older garages are frequently demolished for various purposes. As per the guidelines this application is to be reviewed based on the condition, integrity and architectural significance of the garage. Due to lack of maintenance and drainage flow toward the garage walls the structure is deteriorating where it sits on the ground/foundation. Despite some visible deterioration staff does not feel that the structure is structurally unsound or irretrievable. The application does not provide adequate information demonstrating that the garage is irreparable. In the absence of such condition the guidelines do not allow demolition. Staff recommends that the garage be stabilized so it can be, in future, returned to the original use as a garage. 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 the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservotion submitted ........ ............. 1................... Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgov.org/HPhondbook. C3" Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. -0 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) ❑ Owner .......0. �! 4..T......!............................................. Phone........... `�'.. `C `{%...................................................... Address.......... .......... ............. .a-� ...�° ..................................... email............................................................................................... Contractor ............. .f:!�W.....�......�P.1,... ............. ..�..... Address ........ ?`✓{.�.....��'?�!¢`!e.'..........................tai............. ........................ t..... ►. Y'r4.............. ........ .................... Phone.................................................................. email............................................................................................... ❑ Consultant................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... Phone............................................................................................ email............................................................................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: L" Site plan Y Floor plans Building elevations 0"' 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..............;..L..... S.,... ?..T"4.A.104'.r........... ....................................................................1.......I....................................... Use of property ..............: Date constructed (if known)............................................................. Historic Designation ❑ This property is a local historic landmark OR N-0 " 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 Ud Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Lucas -Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: U� 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) Ua 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 c� les !o� over i..`b ew o� 0� x.>.......f................................................-k....►.................................L.............................................................................. �ccu®cel. ............. t. W ��1.!......New....CGc�oies,`............................... !^�!r�vac e...+Ela tcnl........................................................ ........... ..... ................................................................................................................................................................... w�uaWw ... ,'SL�c4oa. ......No }k......Wa��..u.~ ��C«� ............................... .....................................................1............................ ....... .................... .... °.cA.....4'...r{.X `!k?....�es............... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Materials to be used ..................... St.cQ.t,�3...-'....!IZX.�....��...�' S�ki-,-5............................................................................................................................................. Telwn -- P("&- r- t T - �w - F�m' Vo-�{ia - ke . *`a .. t��................................................................... ................................................................................................... ................. ............................. te.-Oow�.'.... W ! ► ,- - ¢ J( w aocQ I.ts t,u�w � � (,ew � ................................................................................I.................... fo KA.&-f e lti. II �IIi--C is �'to� n ........... 2w�c.,-+ I[bo.t�....`....n•••••.f:••..'r.........//....�..;�...••^•...1'asbt.L.i�...............:................ .......... .......................... 't........................w....1.�....�..............``�...................I...I.....L.....................I............. ... ..... ... .. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Exterior appearance changes , _ f n �I \ 1 n ..............................t'f.....SLh? L�:......,1.`'!..!?.... . .. ...4r�7�`�V %►t..... bcat�r,6! .b...,C�;J..!^'....!..—.!02 u acEX Q-M- N�ri �- StcQ l o�"L �N� S 1� v t- t-- oia2 F Nett ac oQ1Tcault. ..........................................e....fn.....JI.Y..............�4�._................................. ►...........:....................................................................... ppdadm/HP Hand book/App.p65 GARAGE i ADDITION EXISTING HOUSE 1.1" � GARAGE ` , O , r- p o � II O \ _, __.- -.- -tom A W W W� } aO•, O a w p I li I 0: I c 1 I- O C7 a. 'i N �G N M 7 M ,`Z, aM W � �--1 A ,�. ,� O z 0 h w� w u F a 0 z � QQQ� M R M ,7, M � A�� U � � `..k. 9 t- & P x x - ' k 4 s ii k s 5 e 1, t .s w,. x ,: ' _ ... Staff Report November 10, 2005 Historic Review for 821 S. 7th Avenue District: Dearborn Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing Applicant, Janet Seiz, is requesting approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed addition at 821 South 7th Avenue, a contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. The proposed addition is at the back of the existing house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments The house was built in ca. 1940 with Late 19th or Early 20th English Cottage architectural style influenced with some influence of Ranch style. Original siding for this gabled house has been replaced. At the back of the house are two additions, a screened porch and a kitchen "bump -out" measuring 10 feet x 4 feet. It is unclear if this "bump -out" kitchen is original or a later addition. The applicant proposes to extend the "bump -out" by 6 feet (effectively 10 feet x 10 feet). For the proposed addition, on the west facade, the applicant intends to use a window that is slightly shorter (by 2 inches) than the existing window. The proposed window on the north facade matches an existing window on the same facade. The applicant intends to use wood for siding, trim, and windows and concrete block for foundation with similar features as the existing house. The applicant proposes to use a trim board to distinguish the house and both old and new the addition. In the absence of evidence that the "bump -out" is a later addition and to better depict the new addition, staff feels that the trim should be used to distinguish the new addition and existing structure. This could be added as a condition for approval. Staff finds that the addition generally is consistent with the guidelines and recommends approval A�.jplication for Historic Rk Jew 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 the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Date submitted .................... ................... Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect wwwicgov.org/HPhandbook. i-Cl' Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. \-ET'- 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) �n !� c� Owner.... Kab ....�1�✓..'..!�r►�.J�ril�i Jl�Q Phone................................. .............................. ........ �.W.n..... 4 ,�......... Address.S.I .............. .... -............................................ /em�ail................................................................................................ 21 Contractor.....&rQ��T.%Yl..% _..... �.......�. L� A* dj Address ... ?.'.v.`......?n....a..1. ............................... ...............�. ......t- ..1... .......... � _. ?: Phone 35(.-.......�9 eail..........................................Q..�............................................... Consultant... � �....!`M....+............................. Address........ ...................................... ............................................................................... Phone.....�gik5 ...77J............................................`...... email ........��.!..! .!.�...�..m5n., coo Application Requirements Attached are the following items: C3/a plan oor plans ilding elevations r tographs LK 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 3.156rQVJ' t....�....� ........................ Use of property ......6.v h j! .LD......... m.. �f, . I10 m� Date constructed (if known)............................................................. Historic Designation ❑ This property is a local historic landmark �O R L`I This property is located in the: � rown 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 Wit . the district, this property is classified as: Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric : PZteration 'ct Type of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, cks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) ition 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 ........................... .................... .......... .......... ........ !7�� .... ..... r ......... .. ......... ....... P ........ .. ..... 64,!qrmlyN.� ............................ ............................ ..................... I ..................... ..................... .... . ....... Ow. .. ........... I. ........ ..... . . . ... .................................................................... ...... ....... ...... ................:::....:.. ..................... A.8.61+vn ....... an ... r ear ......... ....... 1 0 . ..... ... vtxsell. 1 6: . ....... .... .................. ....... 0 ..... .. . ...... .............. I ........-.-.1. i,!!..... o. ......k...r.. C.-, .L...A....� ..n.........C.... ........ 60.....)...* .Ion .............................. 0..1 'n .....................................I � ...................... ....................... ...........I....... am......................J.C ......................er.0.nLbs.......................................................................� A.( �......�-{- ... I ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......... I ....... I ...... I... ............................................................................................................................................................................ ................. I ...................................................................... I ................................................................................................................ Materials to be used 1� ( .6 ..................... ......... m, .................. ......................................................................... ...... IA '0 %= 6A. .......................... ....................... D ................ ......... ..... cat ......... ...... ax.1 .... V .. .. ... ....... 0 n ...... ................ 6. .. ... . . ... n ....... ....................................... ........ 4 .... �WA+ .. ............................. ....................................................................... ....................... 5n�f# .... iz .... . .................. ............... 6q.�$.p .......................... I ........................ I .......................................... I ........... I ..................................................................................................................................... Exterior appearance c .+rZWAWL... ....... ....... ..... acw _..O 4 � .... ...................... ....... coao+ers.. ....................wn ...... m ......... K ................. I 11:1� .......... V�Cwsc - .............. I ....... Ca ........ & ..... ..... ................................................................................................................................... ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65 r— - — - — - — - — - — - — - ----------------------------- II I I I I I ' I ' SITE/ROOF PLAN m SCALE'. 3137=V-V ►---------------� CORNELL-STRODE RESIDENCE ADDITION 315 BROWN STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52245 vr0TWO S-ory ja r A6cl 4iorl s� -Floor -4 1a X a14 w b n C_K ss l oo p NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OTES Patch & repair wall to atch extg plaster as quired. Protect extg wood Dors during demolition & instruction. Remove vinyl flooring & adhesive. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CORNELL-STRODE RESIDENCE ADDITION 315 BROWN STREET IOWA CITY, .IA 52245 Living Room PoJ"? Dining Room / �3 �➢ —, Reloca4t /` G O'-F Y'o01V1 31 f �c i R+ v� MICr� U 5UNRoorv1 �RMi�-Y Rcnt�1 i -- u`. CAA W;00- _ r locq-�ed r �ov�cl�t� Ar3�ckorJ I W-AMOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CORNELL-STRODE RESIDENCE ADDITION 315 BROWN STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52245 1 �V ttu NOTES: Tuckpoinl 1. Paint addition & repaint /� extg. chimney house in 3-color scheme as / noted. / Eave bd., crorm moulding, & frize bdto match exlg. Pnt color 2: Gable 1 �- �II�I wall shingles. —� , %� I I- j i ! ]� i•.I i " Fiber cernenl bd.wall J `� /� �^"'' singles - exposure to match extg. Pnl color 3: Eave, f �I frieze &bds,& �i' rlffl iii_.I LLII�rlll�l� j'II'i li window & door trim. 1 1-III � I � — VJdw trim &drip cap to match extg, _1/ TI��!1-�I III �' III I li�l l rllll I�f'1��.I" - - - - _ - Fiber cement bd. siding - ;,_�. exposure tomatch extg. - - - siding Pot color 1: Clap bd siding New entry canopy & brackets -- --- - 4o r'n '-� - Door trim & drip cap to match exl9, Pot color 2: _ Corner bds & - - 1 I -_ - - New stoop, stairs & water table. I� _ - - -- railing -pntd. Pb r S�ee1 S u I. Door io U�oo� p H W I --- tJ/tr111'� - - -- f�K4-n�, -onc. foundation - plaster. Paint in color to match extg foundation Ext Addition_---_- 1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 114-71'-0' NOT FOR CONSTRUCT101 CORNELL-STRODE RESIDENCE ADDITION 315 BROWN STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52245 SCALE: V4'•I' CORNELL-STRODE RESIDENCE ADDITION 315 BROWN STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52245 NOT FOR CONSTRUCT101 Extg house Addition �7 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 114--T-V NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CORNELL-STRODE RESIDENCE ADDITION 315 BROWN STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52245 (7 „ay:pud g v - > E EO D m E N C I vL - {� t � � Y� � S:� V C'• O O a "'�.. '\ a 5I�51� �tgy�ty �1--$ � � i •' 6 ., • ' •�'��p � �` � � F.t '{. 35SaF f 5.. \ l[•_Tf`M'j'�4■R �$� .R. • £ Pp 4 41� _ C •' s FF , df RL t♦ _r� ,.' -1 •.� �•+III ` j�, 1 •�� NA.+!: t�i "• ;...1. s'•�,,r ��-� �i^,�,ra[1. 4 t5-��. •+y; i �� - � �j ill '�a. A"y T 7T � it •, �� `r�T+'- t �'„ F , ,� t Staff Report Historic Review for 315 Brown Street District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing November 10, 2005 Applicants, Rob Cornell and Susana Strode, are requesting approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed demolition and new addition at 315 Brown Street, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The applicants propose to remove two existing additions to replace with a new two-story addition at the back of the existing house. The applicants also intend to replace two original windows on the east facade of the original house with a double -window of higher sill. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Windows, 9.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions, and 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments The house was built in 1896 using Late Victorian architectural and Queen Ann stylistic features. The additions to be demolished appear to have been constructed in later period at different times. Both, the second story addition and the first -floor back -porch need some repair and maintenance. The applicant intends to replace the two additions and construct a two story addition using similar features and materials as the existing house. The proposed addition is set back from the north and south planes of the house, following the footprint of the back porch, but is extended toward north by approximately 2 feet on the first floor level (footprint size — 9 feet x 24feet). The proposed second floor addition measures 7 feet x 24 feet. Proposed materials for the project — wood for windows, doors, stairs, and railings — fiber cement board siding, shingles and trim — steel insulated door for the basement — concrete for the foundation In the sketches submitted it is noted that the foundation wall is to be plastered and painted to match the existing foundation. The existing foundation, however, is built with stone faced concrete blocks. The guidelines recommend constructing a foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation in color, texture, unit size, and joint profile. The applicant also intends to tuck -point the brick chimney. Staff suggests following the recommendations stated in the section 4.12 of the guidelines. Staff recommends approval provided that the foundation matches the existing material. Staff finds the application generally is consistent with the guidelines except for the foundation. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Jim Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, James Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Justin Pardekooper, Jan Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Charley Kapp CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Certificates of Appropriateness. 923 Dearborn. Terdalkar said that this application involves demolition of an existing deck and construction of a new addition at the back of the property. He said that the deck would be replaced with an addition of 12 feet by 12 feet. Terdalkar said the applicant intends to use materials that match the existing materials on the house, including wood windows, aluminum siding, and trim, and a wood railing for the rear entry stairs and the landing. Terdalkar said the property is a non-contributing structure in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. He said that it was built around 1947. Kapp, the contractor for this project, said the only difficulty may be the aluminum siding. He said that he would really like to use the siding that is on the main structure, because it would look exactly the same. Kapp said that in Section Five of the guidelines for additions, it refers to applying siding to a new addition that appears similar in size, shape, texture, and material to the existing siding on the historic building. He said that obviously this is not a historic building, but anything else would appear quite dissimilar. Weitzel asked when the deck was built. Kapp said that it was perhaps 15 or more years old. Weitzel said that there are two issues: approving the demolition of the deck structure and approving the addition. He added that this is clearly a deck and not a porch. Carlson said he had no problem with approving the demolition and added that it is clearly a later addition. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve the demolition of the deck at 923 Dearborn Street. Ponto seconded the motion. Maharry said the deck appears to be unsound. Weitzel agreed and said that it may have been built past the point of the historic period. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Regarding the addition, Enloe asked if it would be difficult to make the pitch look more consistent with the pitch of the existing roof. Kapp said it would not be too difficult, but he didn't want to get into the second floor window. Weitzel pointed out that the drawing was not an exact plan. Kapp said that he did the drawing by hand. Weitzel said that the windows line up and the eaves line up in the actual design. Kapp confirmed this. He said, however, that the pitch of the roof of the addition is shallower than the pitch of the roof of the house because of the attic. Weitzel said that they aren't always one for one, but they are harmonious. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 13, 2005 Page 2 Weitzel said that the pitch as drawn looks too shallow. Kapp said that it is distinctly different. He said he wanted to make it as close as he could, but it felt like the closer he made it, since it wasn't the same, the more egregious it becomes. Weitzel said he worked on some sketches for this proposal. He said that if the eaves are dropped down to match the eaves on the house and the point of the roof is left about as proposed, it has a better look. Weitzel asked what the pitch of the existing roof of the house is and what the intended pitch of the new addition would be. Kapp said that the pitch of the house roof was probably about 6:12[ratio], and the proposed roof of the addition would be 3:12 [ratio]. Gunn asked if the addition would cover the door. Kapp said that it would. He said there was not a lot of choice. Kapp said there is a center window on the second floor that definitely gets closer to the roof than indicated. Maharry asked about the transition between the siding and foundation. Weitzel said it appears to be standard concrete block, and Kapp confirmed this. Weitzel said that this is a pretty late house. He said that unlike some non-contributing structures, this house always looked about like this. Weitzel said it is old enough to be a historic property, but stylistically and historically, there is nothing significant about the property. Carlson agreed that it would have been evaluated as non-contributing for whatever reason, probably because it was beyond the period when most buildings in the district were constructed. Maharry asked if the guidelines contain requirements for how the wood step railing would be done. Weitzel said those guidelines are not formalized, other than the fact that the railings should match the style of the house. McCallum asked what is proposed for the railing. Kapp said he would use spindles. Weitzel said that what is shown is what the Commission has approved for a lot of non -historic properties in conservation districts before: a simple balustrade. He asked if there would be a little bit more of a newel post at the end. Kapp confirmed this. Weitzel said that the guidelines recommend matching the porch balustrade or using a simple pipe rail, and there is no porch balustrade to match. Kapp said these are tough calls to make this look like it belongs there. Enloe said it can't be faked to make it look historic, so the idea is to make it inoffensive. Weitzel said that if trying to match a style is taken out of the issue, then one is basically left with the idea of not using unpainted, treated wood and not using wrought iron, if the house didn't have it. Maharry asked about skirting underneath the small railing. Terdalkar said that it is not a requirement by code, and the Commission may choose to recommend it. Weitzel said that skirting is recommended, using a three to six-inch wood frame, with slats fastened to the back of the frame in a vertical or lattice pattern. Kapp said he did not have plans for skirting there and planned to leave it open. Gunn asked about the siding. Kapp said that it is aluminum double lap that is over something. He said that it is a V trim up against it but is also a wrap over the casing. Weitzel stated that the Commission cannot do anything about removing the aluminum siding, but it is just a question of whether the Commission allows it on the addition or not. Ponto said that on the primary structure of a non-contributing property in a conservation district, synthetic siding is allowed. Weitzel pointed out that it is not allowed for additions, and Ponto agreed. Ponto pointed out that on page 17 in the guidelines [section 4.5] under exceptions, synthetic siding is allowed for non- contributing main structures in a conservation district. Weitzel said the question is that why it would not then be allowed for additions to non-contributing properties. Ponto said he felt that since the primary structure is sided with aluminum, he would be okay with the addition being that way also. Weitzel said the Commission needs to be careful, of course, because the next this could be cited this as a precedent in the future. Ponto agreed that the issue be considered with all related factors. Carlson said he is also a little concerned that if there is some other siding beneath the aluminum and someone wanted to remove it someday, there would be aluminum clad addition and a wood clapboard house. Terdalkar asked if the intent of having this particular section in the guidelines under new addition was to avoid such mismatch. Weitzel confirmed that is the intent. Kapp said that if someone decided to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 13, 2005 Page 3 take off the aluminum siding and restore the house, the addition would not be very difficult to retrofit to match the former siding. Weitzel agreed with Ponto that the exception is aimed especially toward houses that are non-contributing and also gives the Commission the latitude to allow the exception if it thinks the building is not going to be harmed in appearance by adding synthetic siding. Weitzel pointed out that there are some non- contributing buildings that are non-contributing to a lesser degree than others. Gunn asked, if this were a wood sided house, wouldn't the guidelines allow the addition to be synthetic siding, even for a primary structure with wood siding. Weitzel said that is not written into the addition guidelines. He said that basically the guidelines say that not disallowed is using synthetic siding on an addition instead of the historic siding and under the exceptions, the Commission does not go back and allow that. Kapp said that above all, this is a situation where the structure is going to be less attractive by not having matching siding on the addition. He stated that making the siding the same is a pretty innocuous solution to the issue and the one that will look the least unpleasant. Maharry said he did not think that any of the changes discussed so far would have a huge impact on the visual appearance or structural integrity of the house. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for an addition to 923 Dearborn Street, as drawn, with the roof pitch to be as high as possible without interfering with the second floor window but not to exceed the roof pitch of the existing house. Enloe seconded the motion. Maharry said he did not have a strong opinion about skirting and so would not include it in the motion. Weitzel said he thought that the lack of skirting in this case actually seems to match what little style there is of the house. Carlson stated that the Commission should be clear on why it is approving the metal siding for the addition in this case, even though it is not permitted expressly in the guidelines. Ponto referred to page 26, the fourth bullet under disallowed. Carlson said that on page 25 under recommended for siding, it reads, "Applying siding to a new addition that appears similar in size, shape, texture, and material to the existing siding of the historic building." He said there is nothing under exceptions that discusses non- contributing buildings. Weitzel said there is a potential inconsistency with [section] 4.5: siding: exceptions in a conservation district for non-contributing properties and the guidelines for additions. Gunn said that on page 17, the guidelines expressly allow non-contributing structures in a conservation district to have synthetic siding, yet the Commission would argue that it cannot have synthetic siding on an addition. Enloe asked if it applies to an addition to a non-contributing or contributing structure. Weitzel said that is not specified. Enloe said that possibly the intent was for contributing structures. Weitzel, Ponto, and Gunn agreed. Weitzel said that he thought it was something that was just missed, and if it were rewritten, the Commission would consider changing it. He said the Commission might consider this a special exception but would want to make it clear that the Commission is not allowing it for all additions to non-contributing buildings. Carlson said the Commission should therefore state what exception this applies to. He said he did not assume that this was overlooked but thought it was that for any house or any building, the Commission would look at what the original building was sided in. Carlson said the Commission would not want to allow just anything on the addition if it wouldn't match what is on the original house. He said that whether or not the original house is covered by something else synthetic now, he has always thought that the addition should be built to match what is underneath the siding. Gunn said he thought that was absolutely what was intended for historic and contributing properties. He said that there was not previously a section for additions in the guidelines but said that in the last revision of the guidelines, the Commission pulled out everything that it thought applied. Gunn questioned whether Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 13, 2005 Page 4 the Commission intended for non-contributing structures in conservation districts to have to match the original siding. Ponto said that if one didn't know what the original siding was, if wood was put on the addition at a different lap rate and then the owner took off the synthetic siding, it would not match. He said that if one knew what was underneath, that would be different. Carlson said he was assuming that what was underneath was known but said the Commission could reach a general consensus as to what it means and what could be allowed in the future. Enloe said that when the Commission considers revising its guidelines in the future, it should consider specifying the exceptions for contributing versus non-contributing structures. He said that he thinks it is an unrealistic expectation of non-contributing structures if they are allowed synthetic siding on the main structure already and the Commission recommends similar siding. Weitzel said the case could arise in which there would be a Victorian [influence] historic district where a very nice arts and crafts home would be [considered] non-contributing. He said that a lot of non- contributing exceptions could allow a nice architectural specimen to be degraded, so that the Commission has to be careful to consider that the non-contributing status does not make a structure a free-for-all. Terdalkar said it could be noted that such applications will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Weitzel said this house has little to no style and does not contribute anything in any specific way. He said it would not be detracting from the neighborhood. Weitzel said this property is non-contributing but is not non -historic, because it was older than 50 years at the time the district was approved. Carlson said that in this particular case, for the reasons discussed, he would be willing to vote to approve this. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Kapp said he appreciated the work done by the Commission. 732 Grant Street. Weitzel stated that this application was withdrawn from consideration. MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 22, 2005. Weitzel said that on page three, in the first paragraph, in the third line, the words "world total large, which should be to large one over one" should be changed to "the words too large, which should be changed to large one over one." Carlson said that in the second to last line of that paragraph, the word "greeted" should be changed to "created." Weitzel said he had typographical corrections to submit. Weitzel said that on page three, in the third paragraph under other, it was Maharry who said he would like to see a more schematic organization, in the second line, and Weitzel made the comment about creating a workflow chart. Carlson said the motion near the bottom of page two should be rewritten. Enloe suggested the wording, "Enloe moved to consider that the drainage problem and inability to correct the problem because of existing driveway and property lines constitute justification for special exception, and the proposal as amended be accepted as submitted." Maharry said the sentence starting on page three and ending on page four should read, "Maharry said that if the Commission had too many stark examples of what it would approve and not approve, he would then be concerned that the Commission might appear to be like the design police." Carlson said that on page three, in the fifth paragraph under other, it should read, "Carlson said that if there is one application not meeting the guidelines, the Commission spends all its mental energy on that project and passes through the subsequent ones too quickly." Carlson said he also had typographical corrections to submit. Gunn asked if the applications are put on the agenda in the order received, and Terdalkar confirmed this. Gunn suggested putting the less complex applications first and the more difficult ones toward the end of the agenda. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 13, 2005 Page 5 MOTION: Maharry moved to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2005 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, as amended. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. OTHER: Weitzel said that three consultants applied to work on the Historic Preservation Plan. The proposals were distributed so that the members could read them. Weitzel said the Commission could make a decision at its next meeting. Carlson said the one other time he was present for approval of a proposal, which was the downtown survey, the decision was made by the consensus of the Commission. He said the Commission used the RFP and took into consideration good writing style and good research. Terdalkar said that he sent about 60 requests for the proposal, but received only three responses. He questioned whether that was enough of a choice. Gunn said if the Commission finds a proposal it likes, then it would not need to solicit more proposals. Regarding the discussion of the application process, Weitzel said that because the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) does not have a third member, it is not functioning well. He said that until the problems are fixed, the DRS would not be utilized, at least not in the formal sense. Terdalkar said that subcommittee meetings have to be held as public meetings and need to be announced with due notice. Weitzel said that McCafferty met with applicants frequently in her office, and no one had a problem with that. Terdalkar said those were be pre -application staff meetings with the applicant. Enloe pointed out that decisions were not made at those meetings. Weitzel said that the DRS was not making decisions either but just giving advice. Brennan said that he thought the DRS was created by the City Council. Weitzel said he thought it was part of the Commission's by-laws. Carlson said that any individual members of the Commission could discuss a project with an applicant and give a recommendation. Weitzel said that is ex parte communication, and the staff must be notified before the beginning of the meeting about such communications. Brennan said there can't be a meeting by e-mail and then have those involved say it's not a meeting; it is still a meeting. Weitzel said the only problem with ex parte communication is that it needs to be disclosed. Enloe suggested just keeping the subcommittee review as ex parte communications and making full disclosure, as long as the subcommittee or its members are not making decisions. Terdalkar said that an issue with ex parte communication is if someone makes up his/her mind prior to the public hearing process. Gunn said that the subcommittee is either by ordinance or by by-laws, and if it formally meets, it has to have minutes. Terdalkar said that the minutes are kept, but they are not published as it is considered a work session. Weitzel said he did not see the establishment of the DRS in the ordinance. Brennan said it is not an ordinance, but he believed it was a resolution. Terdalkar read from the by-laws: "The Commission shall have the authority to establish a historic preservation design review subcommittee to review and make recommendations to the Commission regarding applications for certificates of appropriateness. Said subcommittee shall consist of three members of the Commission appointed annually by the Commission to serve one-year terms." Gunn said that elsewhere in City or State regulations, that kind of meeting requires minutes and notice. Carlson asked if e-mailing back and forth would constitute a meeting. Brennan did not know but said there is a point at which it would become a meeting. Weitzel said that he thinks all of the a -mails to Terdalkar become part of the public record at the point they are received by the City. Enloe said the problem is the notification of a public meeting. Carlson suggested asking the City Attorney about the issue. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 13, 2005 Page 6 Maharry said the intent is to streamline the process. Enloe suggested it was easier to do with ex parte communications, which don't require notification or publication. He said the subcommittee could be disbanded, and the three former members could meet informally. Gunn said that members can discuss issues, but when there is a subcommittee that formally makes a recommendation to the Commission, that becomes something else. He said that at one time, the staff and chair did a whole lot of reviewing of the applications without a subcommittee. Brennan said that the subcommittee seems analogous to a City Council work session. He said that substantive work is being done, but formal decisions are not made. Brennan said it is still a public meeting with public attendance and minutes kept. Weitzel said that at this point, it is not functionally possible to have a subcommittee. He said the greater the amount of time before the formal meeting equals an exponential amount of work with regard to the application, with little to no effect on the meeting of the full Commission. Maharry said that perhaps the answer is that the Commission should take at face value the subcommittee's recommendations and its well -reasoned arguments for the recommendations. Weitzel said that the Commission always has the right to overturn what the subcommittee has found as its conclusions. He said that the subcommittee cannot account for everyone's opinion and therefore cannot always get to a working solution in the subcommittee. Weitzel said the subcommittee tried different permutations of those who should be present at the meeting for information and discussion, but without success. He stated that it is the additions to structures that have resulted in the most discussion and controversy. Terdalkar said that to date, in this calendar year, there have been 79 applications for major review. He stated that in 2004, there were only 32 such applications and this increased number of applications has brought increased number of issues not experienced before. Maharry suggested giving the Chair and staff more leeway with some of the minor things. Enloe said that it could possibly be fixed with a change in scheduling, by moving the less difficult issues to the end of the meeting. Weitzel said there has also been a suggestion that the Commission produce style guides and how -to -build manuals. He said that the Commission could definitely do a guide for railings, which could go through as a no material change or a minor review. Weitzel suggested looking into changing the ordinance a little bit to allow that in historic districts. Maharry said that the DRS was supposed to help the Commission raise all the issues so that they are not reviewed all over again. Weitzel said that those things could be outlined in the staff report. Gunn said that he thought they have been to a fair extent. He said that what is not clear is how the Commission will interpret and enforce the guidelines, which is rarely easy. Terdalkar said, in the particular case discussed tonight, he considered all the three references about siding in three different sections. He said first reference about siding is in the Alterations section where the commission may consider exceptions for non-contributing structures. He said then in the sections for Additions, use of synthetic siding is disallowed on additions, however the guidelines recommend to use matching siding on historic buildings. Terdalkar said he had discussed the issue with senior planning staff and it was understood that the intent of these clauses was that the siding that matches the existing siding on the historic building may be allowed for the addition. Gunn said that there were so many more applications this year than the year before that the chance for problems has risen as well. Ponto agreed that there have been a lot of complex cases that have taken a lot of review. Gunn said that, per application, the Commission is spending a lot less time than six or eight years ago. He said he thought that if the more difficult applications were at the end of the agenda and the applicant is made aware that there are problems and the application might be delayed to the next meeting until specifics are resolved, then the process might be streamlined. Carlson said that the Commission has tended not to vote things down or wait for a better design but has generally tried to work things out in the meetings, however long it takes. He said that if the applicants are bringing such bad designs that they can't be resolved quickly, the Commission should probably vote them down and have them return. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 13, 2005 Page 7 Maharry said that when the applicant proposes something that is clearly incompatible with the guidelines, the staff should tell them so that they are aware before they get before the Commission. Terdalkar said that he has had experiences of both types of applicants, but sometimes the applicants are unwilling to meet with him prior to the application or the meeting. Maharry suggested reporting all contact with the applicant as part of the staff report so that the Commission is aware of previous communications. Weitzel added that he would encourage Terdalkar to reject incomplete applications. Enloe asked what the ordinance says about scheduling a second meeting in the month. Weitzel said that the Commission has to hold a regular meeting the second Thursday of the month. He said that a second meeting may be called, but they are supposed to be held only to review certificates of appropriateness, according to the by-laws. Weitzel said that the Commission is not obliged to call a second meeting, however. Terdalkar said that since the number of applications is increasing, it would help if he had more time to review them. He said that the deadline for applications is on the Wednesday of prior week of the meeting, but the packet goes out two days later on Friday. Weitzel said that since the Commission sets the deadline, it can change it to an earlier date. Enloe said he believes the Commission should move the deadline to an earlier date. Terdalkar said this change would also give the applicant more time to respond. Enloe suggested moving the deadline up by two days, and Maharry said he did not feel that would be much of an inconvenience. Enloe said that the Commission could still accept simple applications past the deadline. MOTION: Enloe moved to change the deadline for the receipt of applications for certificates of appropriateness to the Monday of the week before the meeting, for a deadline of ten days before the meeting. McCallum seconded the motion. Terdalkar said that if the application document is done a little differently so that the applicant is required to fill out a checklist to confirm that the application is completed, that would also help. Gunn said he was in favor of the motion but said that he would probably follow with a motion that says that if staff chooses, an application could be accepted with less notice. Terdalkar said he has accommodated applications sometimes even on the day packet is mailed out when he was able to do so. Enloe agreed that it should be left to the discretion of staff to accept a late application that comes in clean, clear, and complete. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Terdalkar referred to a facsimile that the contractor for 415 Clark Street, Rob Phipps, had received from Andersen Windows stating that their vinyl windows are paintable and the contractor intends to use these windows on a recently reviewed project. Weitzel said that since this is such a major issue, he would like to see independent evidence of the claim. Terdalkar said that according to the facsimile the surface has to be scraped to apply paint. He said that there is, however, no guarantee that the paint will last for a long term period. Carlson said that the warranty on the vinyl may also be reduced by abrading it. Terdalkar said that it should be made clear that if paintability was the only criterion that was keeping the Commission from accepting vinyl. Gunn said that clad wood windows have been acceptable, because they had the right profile. He said that there are vinyl windows available that look like storm windows on a house. Gunn said they are flush top to bottom and don't even look like double hung windows. He said that if the windows look right and are paintable, it would be okay with him to allow them. Weitzel said that ultimately, the profile and the paintability of the windows need to be looked at by the Commission. Maharry suggested that.the Commission begin accumulating evidence that the vinyl windows could be an acceptable alternative. Gunn said that the term "wood substitute" has been used throughout the guidelines for the express purpose of approving a new material. He said the guidelines allow a material in place of wood only if the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 13, 2005 Page 8 substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood; and the substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Weitzel said that the material has to also be paintable in a full range of colors. He said that the Commission would need to see a sample of the material. Terdalkar distributed a drawing showing the dimensions for the dormer at 328 S. Governor. He said that he has used some information from actual dimensions provided by the applicant with visual references from the photographs to prepare the illustrations. Terdalkar said that the applicant was asked to mimic what was there on the eaves. He said he did not draw them and the sketch shows the profile of the dormer and how the window fits in. Weitzel said the Commission approved the application subject to the drawings produced by Terdalkar. The consensus of the Commission was that the drawing was acceptable. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcd/minutes/hpc/2005H PC minutes/hpc10-13-05. doc :. -TFFTI- o X X XHx x O XC O �C ✓ti x Q ✓`i ✓`i ✓`i O ✓`i ; p 1^i x x o X X O �C �C �C �C p x O O o x ; x x x ; x x IQ XXOX ; x O o X x �C�COx ; x 0 x ; o X M ; XO�C�C�CO�C�Co X N i '� O x x x x x x Xx�CxO O O ti 00 o �C, n 0 � 0 rnC, r 0 00 0 rn 0 rn El- 0 ON l- 0 o; v'i 0 rnaN �c 0 00 0 o, W M M M M M M M M M M M C L � W ��cooz