Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-2006 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, February 9, 2006 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: 1201 Seymour Avenue B. Minutes for January 19, 2005 4. Other A. Discussion of Annual Historic Preservation Awards 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: �y Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of Date submitted ..... / ID 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. Md* Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. 1.Z 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 .,560..C/�.,.�..4 <.,fi-l.r4.. ..t°� %.. �...... Phone..... L?.-;/....................................................................... Address ..... 1.9eI &11'! /M.'0�z.................................. � C_i%''11 ...................AIA� ,��........71+,..f................................... email............................................:............................................. ❑ Contractor ...... Address................................................ .......................................... .. �.�Phone ................Q..k1.G.c.�. .. � ..... ........�l� ... �.�.. email........................................ I..... Zr Consultant Address.........crl �?...,,�..... .........................G?��l�^^l%�5.%..��/��.i Phone ...............;..a.y�,�. ............................................................................................. email ............ ;5;4" 4??�(.�. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Site plan Floor plans �f Building elevations Photographs ❑ Product information 0 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 .......... /";;.al . ':;......... Y Use of property ...�/..n Date constructed (if known) .......... (..r.......................... Historic Designation Ll 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) tv 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: This project consists primarily of an addition on the back side of the house. The addition will be setback from the side walls of the original house 2 feet. The back of the original house has been altered significantly. This includes the addition of a large shed dormer and the replacement of the dining room windows with patio doors. There are no significant historic features on the back of the house. In addition, some windows will be replaced on the west side of the house. The bathroom window will be moved and the bedroom windows will be replaced with high casement windows in order to provide privacy. 'Materials to be used: Foundation: poured concrete to match original foundation. Siding: cedar or fiber cement wall shingles to match existing Window and door trim: wood to match existing Eave and soffits: wood to match existing Windows: metal clad wood with exterior muntin bars; muntin bar pattern to match existing. Double -hung windows will be used where egress windows or privacy windows are not required. On the second floor, the use of a double -hung window that is large enough to meet egress requirements would have been significantly out of scale to the home. Smaller, casement windows that look like double -hung windows will used where egress is required. This includes replacement of two newer double -hung windows on the west side of the existing house. In addition, a round window will be in the gable of the addition. Though round windows are not typically to this style of house, the house next door which is also Tudor Revival, has a round window. Likewise, high casement windows were historically used in this style and vintage of home. Roof. Asphalt shingles to match existing. i a z� �11 Ioal f Exq garage b be mmoved New concrete driveway 1/31/2006 2:46:13 PM 3-(r I 24'-0• � I SITE/ROOF PLAN [� wrote �y 3 @) o _c c � 0 0 I E y .kp f �' o °' 16 ti o E E 5 a- o.rn g 3 m m cW c S C O 4— co N LU O CO 0 3 0 v c c V 3 m z E g C O cu O W U) ca W co ' 2' 7' 10'- FIRST LEVEL ADDITION AND REMODEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: t/8' - 1'-0' STONE PATIO 2a• o' 7' b' 2' S' 7' a' I8— RAFTERS SIT TIN G RAFTERS o THIS AREA ROOM THIS AREA v 2-6 2-6 3' 4 1/2- 3' 4- 0 0 BEDROOM #2 BEDROOM #3 c o o M o /\ 6-0 20' 4 I/2'j NEW GIRDER TRUSS REMOVE E%ISTWO BEARING MALL 22 5 1, C REMOVE EXISTWG RAILING ,., AND REPLACE M/ I/2 MALL u I EXISTING COMPUTER AREA Q STORAGE AREA a I H 5-0 SON w N 0-, 4-0 3' 4 1/2- BEDROOM #4 24'x36' e' SECOND LEVEL ADDITION AND REMODEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8' - 1'-0* 1,;2o5 --� mom' - Staff Report February 9, 2005 Historic Review for 1201 Seymour Avenue (2) District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing Applicants, Bran and Brenn Eldeen, are requesting approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed addition and alteration project at 1201 Seymour Avenue, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The applicants are proposing to construct a 2-storey addition at the back of the existing house. The applicants are also proposing to remove certain windows and install new windows on the existing house. The commission recently approved a certificate to allow demolition of an exiting garage and construction of a new garage at this property. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: z o Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments The house was built in ca. 1930 with Late 19th/Early 20th Architecture with the influence of English Cottage/Tudor style. There are few other significant stylistic or ornamental features on this modest cross -gabled cottage. The house has been altered and added to at unknown time. The applicants are now proposing to construct an addition to the house, measuring approximately 26 feet long, 24 feet wide and two storeys tall. The addition would extend from the existing south wall. The east and west walls of the proposed addition are set back 2 feet from the exiting wall planes of the house. The roof pitch for the new addition matches the existing house; however, two large shed dormers dominate the roof line. The dormers and cross -gables on a typical Tudor Cottage start at a lower point than the highest point of the roof and tend to have a matching or similar roof pitch. The applicants are also proposing to remove certain windows on the west facade of the exiting house and install new windows as follows: 1) Remove three existing double -hung windows on the first floor and install four square, high -sill, casement windows and reuse an existing double -hung window 2) Remove two double -hung windows on the second floor and install two (paired) new metal -clad casement windows simulated to appear as double -hung windows The application indicates that the casement windows are being used for egress purpose. In staffs view, the four paired high -sill windows that will be installed by removing the existing windows would significantly change the appearance of the house from the east and should be reconsidered. Both casement and double -hung style windows exist on the house and it is not uncommon to have casement windows on a Tudor style house. The guidelines allow the use of casement windows for egress purpose. The applicants are proposing a small circular window the south gable end, which is uncommon for Tudor Cottage houses and staff feels that an alternative window style and size should be considered. Also indicated in the application are: 1) replace a door on the east fagade with a new 1/2 light paneled door 2) poured cement concrete foundation to match the existing 3) fiber cement board shingle siding to match the existing wood shingle siding . 4) asphalt shingles for the roof to match the exiting 5) window and door trim to match the existing MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2006 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Justin Pardekooper, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Brad Eldeen, Shelley McCafferty, Beth Rapson, Susanna Strode, Marlys Svendsen CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. FIRST SESSION WITH SVENDSEN TYLER. INC. (CONSULTANT) FOR THE UPCOMING IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN UPDATE: Weitzel introduced Svendsen as the consultant for the new Historic Preservation Plan, and members of the Commission introduced themselves to her and noted the districts they represent. Svendsen said that two other consultants who are with Clarion and Associates, Matt Gobel and Bodie Hitchcock, will also be working on this project. Svendsen said that Clarion was the original consultant on the preservation plan and provided the expertise for the historic preservation ordinance as well as guidance on some of the financial incentives discussed in the original plan. Svendsen stated that Clarion was interested in being involved in this project. She said she is impressed with Clarion's work and believes this will be an opportunity to bring some of the best, most knowledgeable people in the preservation planning field to this work. Svendsen said that Hitchcock has also worked as a city planner in the field of preservation for the City of Boulder. Svendsen reviewed the scope of the project and discussed specific goals and objectives as her first goal. She said this will be an update and said that the previous plan contains a pretty good foundation. Svendsen said the Commission will have an opportunity to point out any deficiencies with the plan as the process moves on. She said the Commission has asked for a basic concept of a working document that contains goals and objectives as well as a timeline and recommendations for targeted strategies in specific neighborhoods. Svendsen said the process would last about twelve months, and she hoped to present the plan in its final form in early 2007. She said the plan should have a 10 to 15-year time frame and should therefore take the Commission through the year 2020. Svendsen said this time frame points out the importance of the responsibility of planning for the next generation. Svendsen said the plan's RFP calls for the inclusion of three or more neighborhood planning meetings designed to disseminate information and to solicit input. She said she did not believe that three meetings would be sufficient but said that three to five meetings is more realistic. Svendsen said that during the 12-month process, she and the consultants would be interviewing 20 or more people in the following categories: pro -preservation, anti -preservation, neighborhood leaders, leaders of preservation organizations, individuals who have completed major preservation projects, those representing the real estate community, the heritage tourism community, staff, State Historical Society staff, etc. Svendsen said she would hold a specific planning session, in addition to the neighborhood focus groups, with the Commission and with representatives of Clarion and Associates. She said she planned to have the Clarion people in town for three or four days and would have them meet with one or two of the neighborhood focus groups during that time. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 2 Svendsen said there will be an effort to review and update the goals and objectives in the 1992 plan. She stated that specific neighborhood objectives would be added to the plan, based on input and recommendations from the consultants. Svendsen said the plan would update the history of the preservation movement. She said it is a very important step, because it keeps everyone up to speed. Svendsen said she would compile an outline for an update of the multiple property document (MPD) titled Iowa Historic Resources. She said the document covered the period up to 1940, with some amendments since that time. Svendsen said that there has not been a comprehensive overview update, however. She said the update would cover the period through 1957. Svendsen said that she would be looking at the post World War 11 period, including the large growth at the University and the growth in housing, as well as industry that began in the late 1950s and early 1960s. She said that as the document expands to include neighborhoods constructed in the post war period, there will be an effort to update the bibliography. Svendsen said her second objective is to identify major preservation planning issues and problems that the Commission would like to see emphasized. She asked Commission members to share any specific concerns they might have. Weitzel said that one important issue is property owner rights and the preservation movement. He said he would also like to have Svendsen look at modern building standards and preservation. Weitzel said that parts of the building code have specific clauses for exceptions for preservation; however, this administration authority is not looking at those at this point. McCallum asked if there is a state historical building code. Svendsen said there was an effort to enact one a few years ago, but it was never passed. She stated that the Uniform Building Code established a uniform rehabilitation code, and there is now a 4F section that allows for local building officials to grant exceptions. Miklo said he believes the City adopted that. McCallum said that California has a historical building code for the State that grandfathers in older buildings and allows some flexibility for historic buildings. Svendsen said that in the mid 1980s she was part of a historical building code board at the State level. She said that when the architect on that board left, the group fell apart. Svendsen said that in the meantime, there was so much work going on nationally that it was thought better to stick to a national code like the Uniform Building Code, which could be defended in court and would cross boundaries. She said that flexibility was then left in the hands of the chief building official and that in most communities, the chief building officials have become more persuaded about historic buildings being salvageable and have come to understand the field much better. Svendsen said that technology has also changed things. She said she would investigate how the 4F exception has been used in the past and what has prevented it from being used. Svendsen said there is a potential for conflict between the chief building official and the Commission, and she would follow up on that. Maharry pointed out that the City recently designated a cultural district. He said the City Council felt it was important. (can't hear ... too far from microphone) Svendsen said that in terms of the State historic tax credits, unless the property is in a CED, the owner goes to the end of the line for the allocation of State tax credits. She said she hoped that would change at the State level. McCallum asked if new key structures would be identified as part of this process. Svendsen responded that one of the specifications in the RFP was the identification of potential National Register -eligible properties. She said it may be difficult to do a complete survey at this level but said she is always reluctant to give up on a building until she knows its history. Svendsen said this will present an opportunity to identify potential neighborhoods that might be eligible for survey work, and in that, there will have to be identification of potential individually significant properties. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 3 McCallum said he is concerned about Greek houses in particular, some of which are not in districts. He said that some of the changes in the zoning code will allow some flexibility for properties. McCallum said that if they were at least identified as key structures, they might benefit from some of the new zoning language that allows different types of use and some exemptions. Weitzel said that in the past, Svendsen had recommended doing this exact kind of survey. Svendsen said she would look for strategies that would encourage the preservation of these types of buildings. Maharry asked Svendsen if she would be investigating the previous preservation plan and its effects, both positive and negative, on Iowa City. He suggested looking at demolition permits in the districts proposed since 1982. Svendsen said there would certainly be an attempt to identify achievements and non - achievements for each of the set objectives and to look at effects good and bad both inside and outside of recommended areas and strategies. Weitzel suggested also compiling a summary of the economic impact of preservation. Svendsen replied that there will be a fairly extensive recommendation in terms of the next step, how it should be accomplished, and how things are done in other communities. She stated that this would include a plan for the Commission to follow as potentially another project or as asking the Planning Department at The University to undertake a project on the Commission's behalf. Svendsen said a State staff member brought to her attention the fact that the plan in the past did not address issues of archaeology. She asked how the Commission felt regarding archaeology issues. Weitzel said the City has a separate ordinance covering archaeological sites, but it might be interesting to see how it has worked. Enloe said it would be beneficial to see what other communities have done in that regard. Weitzel stated that Ames has a very different approach than Iowa City. Svendsen asked if the Commission has felt the weight of the archaeological facet. Weitzel said the Commission has not, and Enloe agreed. Weitzel said there have only been two archaeological issues in the past five years. Svendsen asked if there is a sense that many archaeological resources have been threatened or lost in that time period. Weitzel said it is difficult to tell, because neither the City nor the County has a comprehensive survey, although he would suspect that things have been impacted without people knowing it. Svendsen said that as she works on the MPD, there are obvious things that surface in terms of what hasn't been surveyed, for example things in Manville Heights and areas further west. She said the next issue is identifying where the neighborhood meetings should be held and therefore where the emphasis on developing strategies in the updated plan should be. Svendsen said she had four ideas in terms of where emphasis should be. Svendsen said she thought that the Longfellow Neighborhood, Summit Street, College Street, College Hill, and Governor could be considered as one contiguous area. She stated that another area might include the North Side, Jefferson Street, Goosetown, and Tank Town, as well as Dubuque Road and Rochester. Svendsen said a third area would basically be west of the river — Melrose and Manville Heights, partly because they were developed almost at the exact same time. She said the Commission might want to consider inviting University Heights citizens to participate at least at the neighborhood meeting level. Weitzel asked Svendsen if she would include the University at all. Svendsen responded that during the course of this process, the University needs to be included as a group or by specific interviews or both so that the University is engaged in a discussion of preservation that it has not wanted to be involved with in the past. She said the State Historical Society is stronger than it has been in the past, which might present an opportunity for the State Historical Society to engage the University as a parallel State agency. Svendsen said the University should of course be invited to be involved in the neighborhood discussions, as the University owns property in most areas discussed. Svendsen stated that a fourth area to consider would be the downtown, which should be separate from the residential areas because its needs are so different; the building stock and tax incentives are so different. She said it would be worthwhile to invite owners of the Northside commercial property area to the downtown meeting as well as to the Northside residential meeting. Weitzel said that Mercy Hospital should also be invited to participate in the Northside meeting. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 4 Maharry said that the Kirkwood area is a potential area for targeting. Svendsen said she thought of including that for the Longfellow Neighborhood. Weitzel also mentioned the South Moffitt District. He added that in Miller's Orchard, located between Highway One South and Benton Street, there is housing stock that was built by the Douglas Corporation, although he did not know if he would consider any of it unique. Svendsen said her final objective is to compile names of people who would be worthy of interviewing. She asked Commission members to e-mail her at svendsentyler .centurytel.net with the name, e-mail address, and phone number of any individual she might want to contact and an idea of why he or she would have a unique perspective on preservation issues. Svendsen mentioned that she would particularly like to talk to the person who put together a walking tour of literary figures in Iowa City. Svendsen said she hoped to hold the neighborhood meetings in March and April, avoiding the week of spring break, and asked if anyone had scheduling problems during those two months. She said that Commission members would not need to attend all the meetings, but it would be good to have a few commissioners at every meeting. Maharry said that the City Council would be reviewing this document, and he felt it would be important to compare the City's personnel needs with regard to preservation with those of other cities. Svendsen said that when the Clarion consultants are in town, they will hold planning sessions with the Commission and with other preservation organizations. She expected that to occur in March or April. Maharry said that the previous plan discussed the State historic property rehabilitation tax exemption, and he asked if that still is in effect. Svendsen said it still exists but has not been used very much. She said that although the old law is still in force, for the project to qualify, it has to be identified as a substantial rehabilitation. Svendsen said the current tax credits would not likely be used frequently in Iowa City, because of the high cost of real estate in Iowa City. She said the exemption requires the amount spent to be equal to the adjusted basis of the building. Svendsen said she would be examining other states to come up with ideas that may make more sense in Iowa City. Burford asked if there would be an opportunity here to address historic preservation and affordable housing issue. Svendsen said she would look at affordable housing but said she was not certain the Commission would want to make preservation obligated to solve the affordable housing issue. She stated that it would be an appropriate thing to look into to the extent that the City may be looking to developers to solve the affordable housing issue with reconstruction. Weitzel stated that this is an important process, and participation is important because the plan is expected to be in effect through 2020. ANNUAL GOAL SETTING/WORK PLAN FOR YEAR 2006: Weitzel asked how many goals the Commission had besides the Preservation Plan for the next year. Terdalkar distributed the Work Plan Goals and Objectives. Weitzel said it would be good to finish up some of the goals and objectives; however, there would be a lot of work to do on the preservation plan, which should get priority. Maharry said the goals are all worthy goals, but if there is the same volume of applications for certificates of appropriateness as in 2005, there will not be time to work on other goals. Weitzel pointed out that some of the goals would be picked up by Friends of Historic Preservation or other organizations. Ponto asked if notification of property owners in historic districts would be repeated. Terdalkar replied that letters are going out this month. Ponto said he feels it is important to send those letters out annually. Carlson asked if the community outreach expected by City Council before any new districts are proposed would be part of the new plan. Weitzel said it might be worthwhile for the Commission to wait until the plan is in place for the next set of districts. Carlson agreed that it is important but might be better to come after the plan, when people are more aware of what is going on. Weitzel said the goals and objectives would be kept as a notation unless anyone had anything new to add. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 5 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Appropriateness: 315 Brown Street. Terdalkar said that this is the second application concerning this property. He said the Commission reviewed this project with alternative designs, but the applicant has come back with a new plan that would not remove the screened porch but would partially enclose it and would replace some of the windows on the house. Terdalkar said the proposed enclosure would be about eight feet by six feet. He said that the window on the east side would be replaced with a window of shorter height, and on the second floor, a bathroom window would be relocated to allow interior modifications. Terdalkar added that the materials are consistent with the guidelines. Rapson, the consultant for this project, stated that the first addition would have cost more than the bank was willing to loan. She said the new goal is to enclose a portion of the back porch, putting a new foundation underneath it that would match the existing, to create a mudroom but also to lend some more base to the second floor addition. Rapson said they would also try to improve the open spot by continuing the siding down. She said it actually extends a little beyond the porch roof so the underside would probably be finished like a soffit to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Rapson said that the two posts would be left in their current location, and the back steps and the porch would be left the same. Rapson said that the bathroom window on the second floor would be moved 18 inches. She said the kitchen windows on the east side would now be left in their current location, but the plan would shorten the windows to accommodate kitchen counters. Rapson said there would be no changes to any rooflines or any footprint. She said the owners would be reusing the back door and would be installing a new wood storm door. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the revised project for 315 Brown Street, as proposed. McCallum seconded the motion. Terdalkar said the applicant had called him and asked that the Commission should consider only the first proposal. The applicant has decided not to pursue the Alternative 1. Maharry said he would be interested to vote or at least discuss the alternative. He said that the last time when the Commission approved this, there was a bumpout that the Commission tried very hard to get rid of. Maharry said the Commission ended up approving it by allowing exceptions to some of the guidelines. He said that in the new configuration, that situation is not improved to the historical standards of the neighborhood by remaining bumped out there. Maharry said the alternative provided for a seamless first and second story. Carlson agreed that the alternative proposal might be more aesthetically harmonious, although this is actually more historically correct. He said, however, that if it is kept the way it is, he would have no problem with it. Terdalkar pointed out that the alternative is not 'seamless' on the east facade as the first story is slightly wider than the second story addition. Enloe said he agreed with Carlson on that point. McCallum asked if the alternative is something the property owner wanted. Strode, the property owner, said that they could use the additional space, but it would be a lot more complicated. She said the contractor pointed out that there would be about three different planes on the east side that would be an issue. Rapson stated that part of the rationale for this plan is that there would not be so much money invested in this that the porch could not come off later. She said it would be a short-term solution for the owners so that they would not have to spend so much money trying to fix a bad thing that they don't really want anyway. The motion carried on. a vote of 8-1. with Maharry voting no. 1201 Seymour Avenue. Terdalkar stated that this is an application for the replacement of a garage on a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. He stated that the plan is to replace an old garage with a new, two -car garage that would have a footprint of approximately 29 by 26 feet. Terdalkar said that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 6 at the highest point, the new garage would be 20 feet from the ground, and most of the materials to be used are consistent with the guidelines. McCafferty said that the house is very small, but the owners like the neighborhood and want to expand the house with an addition so that they can continue to live there and have the house function for their needs. She said that part of the plan includes demolishing a small model-T garage and building a larger, more functional garage and a new addition. McCafferty said this application is for the demolition of the existing garage and construction of the new, because that will potentially have some impact on what is done with the addition. McCafferty said the current garage has some rotting around the bottom, and it sits on the ground; there is no slab. She said that with the new garage, she has tried to reduce the scale of it, particularly from the street, and to evoke the look of the old garage by having the little bumpout with the gable on it. McCafferty said that on the rest of it she has used a hipped roof so that there will not be the large scale from the front and back yards as one would have with a gable roof. She said that from an elevation viewpoint, the height may be 23 feet, but using a hip roof also adds perspective, so that it will appear to be smaller and shorter than what is seen in the elevation. Weitzel asked for the height of the house. McCafferty said the house is 28 feet wide, and it's the same pitch as there is along the largest gable of the house, not the more decorative gables on the front. She said that the width of the actual garage is 24 feet, so it's not going to be as high and will also appear lower visually because of the hip roof. McCafferty said the garage would be 24 feet wide by 26 feet deep for most of the garage. She distributed a sketch of how the addition would look if the garage project is approved. Weitzel said the Commission has allowed other demolitions of garages on this same block, including one on Clark Street. Enloe asked how reparable the garages were in the case of the other demolitions. Weitzel said that at least one of them was reparable, but it was decided that the garage was not specifically unique. He said that for the other garage, the owner insisted that it was not reparable, although some of the Commission members disagreed, but ultimately the owner could not park in the garage because it was a small 1920s or 1930s garage. Weitzel said the Commission has to balance keeping the house usable and livable and museum -quality restoration. McCafferty said that on the plans, she tried to maintain the scale and character of the front of the house, but the back of the house, in terms of the addition, has been changed dramatically. She said that in general, the rear part of the property has been altered significantly. Maharry asked for the dimensions of the existing house. McCafferty said the front elevation is 28 feet by 32 feet. Maharry asked how the elements of mass and subservience to the main house would be met with the new garage. McCafferty said that it would be smaller in size, smaller in width, and would have a hip roof to diminish the scale. Enloe said he thought it would be of an appropriate scale once the addition is built, but he is a little troubled by the two-step process in which the Commission is asked to approve a garage that approaches the size of the house, although this is a fairly large lot. Maharry noted that the footprint of the proposed garage is approximately 639 square feet, and that of the existing house is approximately 896 square feet. McCafferty said that the house is one and one-half story versus a one-story garage. She stated that the house is at least 3 '/2 feet taller than the garage. Brennan said that it is also heavily wooded in the back yard and the alley, with fencing on the east elevation. Ponto asked if the pitch of the garage roof was planned to match something. McCafferty replied that on a Tudor revival house like this one, the main mass of the house is of a lower pitch and then on the front there is a steeper pitch. She said that the garage roof would have the same pitch as the largest mass on the house to keep it lower, so it won't compete with the main house. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1201 Seymour Avenue, as proposed. Pardekooper seconded the motion. Carlson said he is troubled by the footprint size and the admittedly non-functional for the current vehicles garage. He asked, if the demolition is approved, is there any case in which the Commission would not Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 7 approve the demolition of a small period garage that is not particularly ornamental but is just a functional model-T type garage. Weitzel said the statements that have been made are that garages that match the house were in really good shape, although the issue has always been presented as functionality. He said however, that denial would prohibit an owner from being able to park, or he would have to build another garage next to that and take up the rest of the lot with another garage. Enloe added that garages of that time period were not built on slabs and therefore tend to be a little weak at the bottom. He said that once again, any garage of this period becomes vulnerable to that kind of judgment. Enloe said he was concerned that the City would lose this as a class of building. McCafferty said that there is a precedent for allowing this. Pardekooper said that aesthetically, looking from the street to the back yard, this will make the whole property look nicer. He said that any future addition will be based on approval of this, and McCafferty confirmed this. Maharry said that a larger garage may be okay, but its size of compared the cottage is a concern. He read from Section 6.2 of the guidelines, which recommends, "Constructing garages and other outbuildings that are clearly subordinate in size to the primary structure." Maharry stated that it is a recommendation and that this would not be disallowed by the guidelines. McCafferty stated that there are a number of two -car garages in the alleys in this area. She added that typically the older two -car garages have a hip roof. Terdalkar pointed out that the houses in such instances are generally bigger. Weitzel said that Commission members need to decide. if this meets the criteria of scale, mass, and historical significance of the existing structure and vote accordingly. Enloe said he believes the proposed plan diminishes the visual mass to a reasonable degree. He said, however, that whether it is calculably subordinate or perceptibly subordinate is an individual judgment call. Enloe agreed that it would be subordinate to the larger house, but that is not an issue at this point. DISCUSSION OF SECTION 4.11: GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS OF THE IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK: Carlson said he has not yet completed the memo to be sent to the City Council regarding this issue. He said that there are actually two points to be addressed: one is what the City Council actually asked the Commission to do in reviewing Section 4.11, and the other concerns the implied direction of the City Council with regard to the application for a project at 417 Grant Street. Carlson said that the second point has been affected by a phone call that Terdalkar had with Ms. Duarte. Terdalkar said that at Weitzel's direction, he contacted the applicant to see if she could meet with the representatives of the commission, Vice -Chair Richard Carlson and Justin Pardekooper and staff to propose and explore the options commission has considered. Terdalkar said the owner has said that she is open-minded about reaching to a solution, and he hopes to make some progress in that direction after the meeting with Ms. Duarte on Monday or Tuesday. Weitzel said the owner did not make clear at the first meeting is that there is a leak over the oriole on the bumpout on the south side, and the plaster there is now starting to become wet. He said he did not know the condition of the gutters, although last year's hailstorm and lack of a repair job is one possibility for the cause of such a leak. Weitzel said he would be concerned about the Commission making a change in its decision simply because the owner is not doing maintenance. Pardekooper asked if the contractor at least made the situation watertight. Weitzel said the contractor was allowed to finish and did go ahead and finish the roof. He said the contractor put tar paper and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Page 8 shingles on the north gutter but did not close off the ends. Weitzel said the investigation with the owner would help determine what caused the leak. Weitzel said that the owner contacted Jan Ream and had her look at the plaster, at which point Jan told Terdalkar that they weren't going to enforce anything if the owner went ahead and did the work. Weitzel said the Housing and Inspections Department can't do that but must follow the directives of the Commission and the City Council. Weitzel said he then asked Terdalkar to contact the owner to discuss the situation with her. Carlson said he would just like to see the owner come before the Commission and discuss this. He said that if the Commission could eliminate all the options the owner has eliminated and say that the only two options are what she is doing or a $3,000 complete rebuilding, he would certainly consider what the owner wants to do. Weitzel agreed but said that there are several other steps the owner has skipped over. Carlson agreed and said that before the owner completes those steps, the Commission can't do anything. Carlson said that the guidelines do allow exceptions in exceptional circumstances. He said that in terms of the guidelines in Section.4.11, his sense from the last discussion was that most Commission members felt the wording was fine, provided that there are a variety of options that will work in most cases. Weitzel suggested the Commission give Carlson the latitude to complete the memo to the City Council after and regardless of the meeting with the homeowner. Weitzel said the discussion with the homeowner should be taken into account but said that a memo of some sort is in order, in any event. Carlson said that he would send the memo to staff for review before sending it to the City Council. Gunn and Enloe agreed that the memo did not need to be reviewed before the full Commission. Minutes for November 10, 2005. Weitzel .asked Commission members to submit typographical or grammatical errors to Terdalkar. Terdalkar pointed out that the tape recorder stopped working during the meeting and said that spaces where there are parentheses or where statements are out of line should be filled in by those making the particular comments. Carlson stated that on page seven in the fifth full paragraph, the first sentence should read, "Carlson said that the Commission had previously approved similar windows but not on a house of this style, and he did not believe that paired windows would be appropriate in this case." Carlson said that on page six, in the third paragraph after the tape recorder quits, his meaning would be better conveyed by, "Carlson said that he would probably vote against the demolition, because he considers back porches to be character -defining features of houses of this period," which would accurately reflect his intent. Carlson said that on page ten under other, the second sentence should just be deleted, and the third sentence should begin with the word, "Carlson." He added that in the last sentence of that paragraph, the word "resources" should be changed to "experience." MOTION: Enloe moved to approve the minutes of the Commission's November 10, 2005 meeting, as amended. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Weitzel pointed out that there would be a Cultural Advocacy Day in Des Moines on Monday, January 23�d which would include information regarding the economic impact of historic preservation. The consensus of the Commission was to begin future meetings at 6 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte. s:/pcd/minutes/hpc/2006/01-19-05. doc