HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-2006 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, March 16, 2006
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Lobby Conference Room
6:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
3. Items of�Consideration
A. Certificate of Appropriateness:
1. 520 S. Governor Street
2. 517 Grant Street
B. Minutes for February 9, 2006 and February 22, 2006 meeting
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 D2 2 77
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
www.icgov.org1HPhandbook \)X Cer ' cate 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)/
❑ Owner ...... vZQ........cI...........................................
Phone........... .................................... ..............................................
Address �2D s. Cioyfe,Inoir `c3>,reet
................ ............................... ........................
...................... J4..!. .rr�: as�f�............................
email........................................................................................
❑ Contractor..........�!!�
�1.........................................
Address ............$..............n..`..............
.........
...
.........................SaYa.....................
Phone.............. .:5...72! ...................................................
email...............................................................................................
❑ Consultant.................................................................................
Address..........................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
Phone.............................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
email...............................................................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
❑ Site plan
❑ Floor plans
Building elevations
Photographs
❑ Product information
❑ Other............................................................................
If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or
a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a
site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs.
If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure,
please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently
describe the scope of the project.
Provide a written description of the proposed project on the
second page of this application.
Property Information Address of property ..........o 3-
..5'`%.............................................................
............................................ ....t.F....................................
Use of property ........i >;i441l...............................................
Date constructed (if known) ..............186 0
Historic Designation
❑ This property is a local historic landmark
OR
This property is located in the:
❑ Brown Street Historic District
❑ College Green Historic District
❑ East College Street Historic District
❑ Longfellow Historic District
❑ Summit Street Historic District
❑ Woodlawn Historic District
❑ Clark Street Conservation District
❑ College Hill Conservation District
❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District
X Lucas -Governor Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
,iC 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
.... - .14C Lyw -I)Ce
.. . ......... ou?
............ . ................ .......................
I . .......................
e w ... ......... .................................................
I ft� .14.4 .. . ............
............ I....01.'714.1 .... .......................................................................
........... . :4.. ..... .7.4 ..... . .....
fj . . ..... . .......................
......... mu
...... a4u.Xw#r� .......................
... 5C.6� ......................
0. �., ....................... ..........
. . ...... A ........... ....................
........ ...
.......... ;f
......... . W..A ..
.ft4, - 21
dig .... 4K ... Xq.1- / ...............................
lJHcn... &�Am
t .r ........... . ................................................ I ..................................
Materials to be used
............. w ......................................... I .......................... ...... ........ .... ...................................... " ....................................... I ....................... I ...............
.......... ...... ... mx..4 ... PrX.A.Wr ................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............. ... . ......... ... / . ....... .... macj,, Ig ...............................................................................................................
................... ....... I .................. I ............ ............................ I .................................. .......... ........... I ........ " .................. I ....... I ..........
I-Irll'-m - WQd �O - 4 .......... I ....... I ......................... ... ... exiu..:;+}...................................................................................
.....................................
...........
Exterior appearance changes
....................
..................................................................................................................................
................. . 440
........... I ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ I ........ 11, ...............
ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65
Staff Report
March 16, 2006
Historic Review for 520 S. Governor Street
District: Governor -Lucas Conservation District
Classification: Contributing
The applicant, Suzanne Bender, is requesting approval for proposed alterations at 520 South Governor Street, a
contributing property in the Governor -Lucas Conservation District. The -alterations proposed are at the back of the
house. The project includes replacing/relocating and installing windows and a new entry door.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.7 Windows
Staff Comments
The house was built in c. 1860 using Late Victorian architectural style and Italianate stylistic features. The house has
been altered and added on to over time. Some of the existing additions appear on the 1933 Sanborn Fire Insurance
maps.
As mentioned above the applicant intends to replace a window, relocate two windows or install four new windows on
the later additions at the back of the original structure. Per the application the changes are proposed to accommodate
some proposed interior alterations.
Proposed alterations to the 11/2-story addition (kitchen)
1) replacing a window on the south facade with a narrower window; (#8—shown on a plan included in the application)
2) relocating and replacing a window and installing a new window on the east facade; (#6 & #7 resp.) and
Proposed alterations to the 1-story addition
1) relocating a window on the east facade; (#2) and
2) installing a new, half-light entry door (#1) on the east facade, and three new windows (#3-5)
The applicant proposes to use wood doors and windows that match the existing windows the house, in size, profile
and trim. The applicant has also indicated to re -use one of the exiting windows and salvaged siding. With the
installation/relocation of the windows and the proposed door the addition from the south side will appear as an all -
season room/porch, and in staffs view, would not negatively affect the character of the original Italianate structure.
Staff finds that the proposed alteration project is generally consistent with the guidelines and recommends approval.
Application for Historic Review
Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties'
located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City For Staff Use:
Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of
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
•www.icgov.org/HPhandbook. Certificate of Appropriateness
Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. vd" 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..04C/A.. Cf.. ..............
Phone ... J>.J�M..`.. �5A2 v..1..............................................
Address... ..........l,z ..................... ..................
....... 1,d o ... (22`i..111 .........1 ...., 6...........
email,%,?%Ti.�sr6. I..40-11,9_o..:..j1.2.. .........................
❑ Contractor....w7��%..1,'ll�?�(lp'..
Address..........................................................................................
Phone................................................................................
email................................................................................I..............
❑ Consultant.................................................................................
Address..........................................................................................
Phone.............................................................................................
email...............................................................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
❑ Site plan
❑ Floor plans
❑ Building elevations
v❑ Photographs
❑ Product information
❑ Other............................................................................
If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or
a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a
site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs.
If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure,
please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently
describe the scope of the project.
Provide a written description of the proposed project on the
second page of this application.
Property Information
Address of property . ).7..1;,rzs.. ./..... ...............
fe... .............................
Useof property ..........................................................
.....................................................
Date constructed (if known)...��i.....................................
Historic Designation
❑ This property is a local historic landmark
OR
j$ This property is located in the:
❑ Brown Street Historic District
❑ College Green Historic District
❑ East College Street Historic District
JW 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:
9 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
1a Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
❑ Other
Project �����m�����n
' description
...---_-__.---.-.—_.._-.~.-.--.—...............................
....................... ................................ .......
.~..'
'~~-'... ............... ~-'.....................................................................................................................................................................
Materials to be used
�-.. -~---77'---------------------'-----'----------'---------'
Exterior changes
0; ................ --r . . ...... 4:?� ...... .............. J
ppdadm/HP HandboomAppp6S
O
511 Grant Street
n
D
—ii
Iowa City, IA 52240
February 1, 2006
-
y
cri
Dear Council Members:
cn
After appearing before you at the beginning of November, I decided to wait until the Council
reviewed the guidelines before proceeding to resolve my gutter problem. The December snow
storm and accompanying freeze caused additional damage to the gutter on the south side of my
house and significant water damage to the interior of my home. I had water trickling down the
inside of dining room windows, around the window frame, and from new cracks along the wall
directly above the window as well as the wall above the bay, as well as heavy dripping from a
new crack in the ceiling of the bay in which the window sits. At one point, I had to leave the
house for about two hours and upon my return found that a container I had placed under this latter
drip had collected about a half -gallon of water.
At that point, I called The Maintenance Company to see whether anything could be done in the
way of an emergency repair to stop the immediate water infiltration. They sent someone out and
informed me that with the weather conditions, there was nothing they could do at that time. After
ringing out towels and empting drip -catching containers for four days —the dripping stopped
during the nights when everything froze and started again during the days as the sun hit the snow
causing some mehing--I decided I could no longer wait for the Council to act before making the
necessary repairs to prevent additional damage to my home.
I called the contractor and asked him to come back to complete the work he had begun in late
AugusVearly September. He was reluctant to complete the work for fear of being found in
violation of code. I contacted Jann Ream, explained the situation, and asked for a letter that
would assure my contractor that I would be held solely responsible for any violation that might be
charged and that the City would not pursue the contractor. After I received the letter I had
requested, I contacted the contractor and he agreed to add my gutter enclosure to his work
schedule and told me he should be able to get to it in January.
In mid -January, Sunil Terdalkar called me to schedule a meeting with representatives of the HPC
to discuss possible resolutions to the "gutter problem." After a couple of attempts, rve were able
to find a time that fit the schedules of all concerned. That meeting was set for 9 AM, Thursday,
January 26 at my home. At 7:30 that morning, I received a call from the contractor informing me
that he would be coming back to complete the work on the gutters later that day. I told him I
would be meeting with HPC representatives that morning, but that he should plan on continuing
with the original plan because my primary concern and obligation was to protect my home and
ensure that it would bewatertight• before the next storm, whenever that might be.
At 9 AM, Sunil Terdalkar, Richard Carlson, and Justin Pardekooper arrived at my home and I
immediately told them of the developments with the contractor. I then proceeded to show them
the damage my house had sustained as a result of the delay in fixing the gutter problem. After
they had looked at cracks, stains and flaking paint, we went outside to look at the gutters
themselves.
Justin Pardekooper first went up on the north side of the house and examined the work that had
been started and interrupted in the fall. He determined that there was no framing. He also noted
that %" plywood had been used —a thickness that can be used to span 2 feet. The distance
spanned was less than 2 feet -the board is only 19" wide. After he came down, he answered
questions posed by both Sunil Terdalkar and Richard Carlson in my presence. During this
exchange, he expressed the opinion that what had been started would be a "longterm solution,"
not a "short-term" one. He also explained why it is not a good idea to enclose the gutters with a
horizontal board (one of the options recommended by the guidelines). More significantly, to m)•
mind, he expressed the opinion that "code aside," this was a good solution to the problem.
We then moved to the south side of the house, and Justin Pardekooper went up to look at the still
open gutter on that side. After examining it, he said that he would have to agree with Emerson
Andrishok that the build up of material used for repairs over the years (which he characterized as
having been well done) would make it ineffective as a long-term solution to simply recoat or add
a membrane to the existing gutter liner (the other option recommended by the HPC). He also
expressed the opinion that the water infiltration and/or the age of the house made it a distinct
possibility that there would be underlying damage that would have to be addressed as part of a
repair to maintain the open gutters. He stated that it was possible to repair the gutters, but that
such repairs would be "costly." In a refreshing bit of self -directed humor, he said, "It would be
costly because carpenters are expensive, and I should know because I am one." I did not ask him
to attach a number to the term "costly." It was clear from the context that it would be significantly
more than the cost of what I was attempting to do. To my mind, he confirmed everything I had
reported to the Council in my first letter. I saw no new options coming out of this meeting.
As I explained in my letter to you on September 26, the estimate I had been given by Emerson
Andrishok was $3,000 if there were no underlying damage. (In the rase of finding underlying
damage, he had mentioned $5,000 as a ballpark figure.)
While all this was going on, the contractor's crew arrived and began to unload the scaffolding
materials. One of the -men walked up to me as I was speaking with Richard Carlson and asked
whether 1 still wanted them to start the work in the afternoon and I answered in the affirmative.
(As I pointed out at the time, I certainly cannot be accused of trying to hide anything.)
At that point, my meeting with Sunil Terdalkar and the two HPC members had convinced me that
the only long-term solutions open to me were to complete the work that had been started almost 5
months earlier immediately, or to tty schedule a different contractor to repair/rebuild the gutters.
The latter option would not only be far more expensive, but would also leave my home exposed
to the likelihood of sustaining additional damage before that work could be completed.
r" The work was done Thursday afternoon and Friday morning. On Saturday I received citatiotg
in the mail, but at least my house was dry as the rain was pouring down outside. Acco�tgjo tl;r,
letter that accompanied the citation, the City will not move to enforce the citation until tfit;- j Tl
Council decides what modifications, if any, it will make to the guidelines.
I believe what I have been put through —including the damage sustained in December
new "violator" status --while trying to repair my home (in a manner that is consistent w It �
has been done throughout the historic district for years) is an outrage. There is a reasonr'+hy mog
of the homes in the historic districts have had built-in gutters enclosed in exactly the same way I cn
have now enclosed mine. Cost is certainly a factor, but beyond that, even rebuilding the gutters,
would still leave m)? home (and any other home that has a bay that protrudes from the main wall
of the house) with a gutter running directly above an interior space. Although "built-in" gutters
are usually part of the overhang, there is no overhang over the bay. For this reason, the gutter
becomes the do facto '-roof' of the bay —this is not a good idea!
1 urge you to modify the guidelines and to do so as soon as possible. Not only am t seeking relief
for the unreasonable burden placed upon me by the current guidelines, I am also seeking to
prevent having other law-abiding, tax -paying property owners subjected to what I have been
made to endure.
In closing, I would like to ask you to consider the following question as you review the
guidelines: What kind of commitment to historic preservation mandates the preservation of
gutters even at the expense of the walls that support their?
Respectfully;
A. Duarte
O
C'
C_
cv 4�
c.n
cn
517 Giant Street
r�
Iowa Cite, IA 52240
�
—n
September 26, 2005
m
CO
-v
rn
Dear Council Members:
>
00
I am writing to appeal the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny me a
Certificate of Appropriateness that would allow me to enclose the gutters on my house and to ask
for a variance on the basis of undue hardship.
As part of a reshingling job to repair hail damage to my roof, I decided to enclose the built-in
gutters on my home. After consulting a number of roofing contractors over the past fifteen years
about a recurring leak on the south side of my house, I was convinced that the most effective
long-term solution to the problem would be to enclose the gutters. To maintain symmetry, I
decided to enclose both the south and the north gutters. When the roofers began the work, Tim
Weitzel, chair of the Historic Preservation Commission and next -door neighbor, came over and
informed them that they could not proceed with the work to enclose the gutters. (Thee happened
to have started the job on the north side of the roof.)
After speaking with Mr. Weitzel, and meeting with the building inspector, I petitioned the
Historic Preservation Commission for permission to enclose the gutters. At the Historic
Preservation Commission meeting, Mr. Weitzel recused himself and did not vote, but he
remained for the discussion and took an active role in it. During the discussion, Shelley
McCafferty, who happened to be in attendance, handed me a card suggesting I contact Emerson
Adrishok. Several commission members indicated this would be a good idea.
The Commission's stated reason for denying my request was the fact that historic preservation
guidelines specifically disallow enclosing built-in gutters when such enclosures alter the pitch of
the roof near the gutters. Instead, they recommend blocking them horizontally. When I consulted
Emerson Andrishot, he advised me that because of the steep pitch of my roof above the gutter,
horizontal blocking would cause problems in the winter because of the weight of the snow/ice
that would collect on the horizontal surface.
The other solution recommended by the historical preservation guidelines, relining the gutters,
would provide only a short-term solution because of the age of the gutters and the number of
repairs done over the years. The angle of the trough within the gutters has been decreased by
repeated recoatings over the years, and the only long-term solution that would allow proper
drainage with the built-in gutters would be to rebuild them. I did not inquire about the cost of
relining the gutters because I have been repairing the gutters (every couple of years) for the past
twenty years and am now looking for a long-term solution, not another short-term solution.
I discussed the cost of rebuilding the gutters with Emerson Andrishok, and he informed me that
assuming no unexpected hidden damage, which he would not be able to see until he began to tear
down the gutters, rebuilding the gutters would cost about $3,000.
I am now faced with two long-term solutions to the problem --rebuilding the gutters for at least
$3,000, or enclosing them at an angle, causing the roof to flare slightly at the bottom for $600. I
believe, and hope you will agree, that being forced to spend at least five times the amount
necessary to maintain my home leak free and prevent further damage, represents an undue
hardship:
This burden seems especially unreasonable in view of the fact that the solution I am seeking to
apply is the one that has been used historically in the neighborhood. Although I had not noticed
how prevalent flared roofs were in the neighborhood before this started, in the past couple of
weeks I have been looking at rooflines as I drive around the Summit Street and Longfellow
historic districts and have found that most of the houses that originally had built-in gutters now
have the "tell -tale" flared roof lines.
I have not done a complete survey, but in the course of my normal driving in and out of the
neighborhood (on Summit between Burlington and Sheridan, Court between Summit and Grant,
and Grant between Court and Center), I found the following houses with gutters enclosed in the
way I propose to enclose mine: 435, 507/509? (no visible number on house; located between 503
and 513), 523 (Tim Weitzel's house, south side only) Grant Street; 1110, 1111, 1112, 1117, 1118,
1120, 1133, 1154 Court Street; 330, 430, 508, 705, 709, 710, 715 Summit Street. In addition to
photos of my house (work interrupted after notification of problem), I am enclosing photos of
435, and 507/509? Grant Street, and 705 Summit Street. i selected these three as examples
because they represent three different styles of homes in the neighborhood.
Even if all of these changes to original roof pitches were done before the area received the
historic district designation, the fact is that this was clearly the neighborhood way of dealing with
a common problem associated with built-in gutters. On these same streets, I saw only a couple of
homes that still had open built-in gutters and none that appeared to have had built-in gutters
enclosed with horizontal blocking. In view of this neighborhood history, I believe the Historic
Preservation Commission's decision represents not only the imposition of an undue hardship on
me, but also an arbitrary and unreasonable action that does not take into account the specific
history of the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
M 'a
cc = P60
a
=
N
t=
��
T
co
Iowa Cta
Historic Preservation Commission
City I LL11, 410 k \`ash nguw Sircct, 1,)w;i I V 522-10
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 23, 2006
To: City Council
From: Richard Carlson, Vice Chair, Historic Preservation Commission
Re: Review of Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, Section 4.11 (Gutters and
Downspouts)
In a letter to City Council dated September 26, 2005, Maria Duarte of 517 Grant Street appealed a
decision by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny her application to cover the built-in
gutters on her roof. At its November 1 meeting, Council upheld the Commission's decision, but also
directed the Commission to review the historic preservation guideline that disallows "[a]ltering the
roof slope near the gutter when covering historic built-in gutters" (Section 4.11 of the Iowa City
Historic Preservation Handbook). The first part of this memorandum responds to Council's request
to review the wording of Section 4.11. The second part addresses the separate question of resolving
the gutter repair issue at 517 Grant Street.
L Review oflowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, Section 4.11
Based on its review, summarized below, the Commission recommends changing the wording of
Section 4.11 of the guidelines to clarify that minimal roof slope modifications for drainage are
permissible over built-in gutters with flat profiles. The Commission believes that any further change
in the current wording of Section 4.11 would weaken the protection of historic built-in gutters and
roof profiles unnecessarily, given the range of repair options available and the possibility of
alternative designs under exceptional circumstances.
The Commission's investigation of the issues relating to Section 4.11 reached three principal
conclusions. First, built-in gutters and roof pitch are widely recognized as distinctive historic
architectural features that should be preserved .when possible. The historic preservation guidelines of
several other cities in Iowa —including Ames, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and Dubuque —
specifically encourage the retention of built-in gutters when feasible, and discourage alterations to
roof slopes.
Second, built-in gutters can usually be repaired or covered in a way that meets the guidelines for
much less than the cost of a complete replacement. Three basic options for repairing built-in gutters
exist under the present guidelines. First, the gutter can be re -lined with metal or EPDM sheeting, or
coated with an acrylic -latex coating such as Acrymax. Second, a roof can be built over the gutter,
provided the surrounding roof pitch is unaffected. Finally, the gutter can be completely rebuilt. The
first two options will generally cost much less than the third.
Page 1 of 2
The final conclusion of the Commission is that the present wording of Section 4.11 does not
accurately reflect the original intent of the guideline, which was to allow a minimal slope for drainage
when covering flat built-in gutters. A literal reading of the current wording disallows any change in
pitch, however minimal. The Commission will discuss ways of clarifying this language and propose
changes for Council action later this spring.
The following points also emerged from the Commission's review, and are included here for the
record. The main purpose of the historic preservation guidelines is to provide the Commission,
applicants, and contractors with a consistent set of expectations regarding appropriate changes to
historic buildings. While some may question the need for guidelines concerning relatively minor
details such as built-in gutters, the regulation of such character -defining details is intended to slow
the gradual accumulation of small changes to a historic building that, taken together, can reduce the
building's historic character as much as a single large change. Since the adoption of the guidelines,
the Commission has consistently favored the retention of distinctive features when technically and
economically feasible.
At the same time, the Commission has been very willing to recognize exceptional circumstances in
which strict adherence to the guidelines would be technically difficult or would result in significantly
greater expense to the applicant. Under such circumstances, the Commission has the power under
Section 3.6 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook to approve alternative designs. This
allows an approved version of a project to go forward, provided the project does not significantly
reduce the historic character of the building or neighborhood. The Commission has regularly
exercised this power in instances where economic hardship could be demonstrated.
The Commission expects that an applicant will propose a project that adheres to the guidelines, or
else will demonstrate convincingly why an exception should be made in their case. If an applicant
does neither of these, then the Commission is left with no alternative but to deny the application.
2. 917 Grant Street
The Commission acknowledges that confusion over the exact meaning of Section 4.11 may have
convinced the applicant at 517 Grant Street that she had no alternative but to appeal the
Commission's original decision to Council. Had she made the Commission aware of her dilemma,
however, rather than presenting her arguments only to Council, the Commission could have worked
much more quickly to resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction. The issue would have been
resolved even sooner had the applicant sought to obtain a building permit before undertaking her
work.
In the interest of seeing this matter put to rest, the Commission is prepared to exercise its power to
make a special exception to the guidelines under Section 3.6 in order to grant a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the work that Ms. Duarte has already completed, on the basis of information
she has presented formally to Council and informally to the Commission. Ms. Duarte has agreed to
submit another application for this work for consideration by the Commission at its next regular
meeting.
Page 2 of 2
Staff Report
March 16, 2005
Historic Review for 517 Grant Street
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
The applicant, Maria Duarte, is requesting approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an alteration addition at
517 Grant Street, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project includes covering the
existing built-in gutters on the house to remedy the leaks. The Commission denied approval for a previous application
for the project.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
Please refer to following sections:
4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations
4.11 Gutters and Downspouts
Staff Comments
Since the first application and denial of the same, some additional information about the condition of the gutters, and
interior damage, has been made available. This information was not conveyed previously when the commission
considered the application. The applicant has since completed the project as proposed in the previous application.
Representatives of the commission conducted an on -site review of the existing gutters in January and found that the
gutters could be repaired but the cost of repairing or rebuilding would be higher than the method used by the
applicant. Other alternatives such as relining the gutters may not have been effective in the long term, unless the
gutters are substantial structural repairs are carried out.
Considering the additional information provided by the applicant in conjunction with the enquiries with the
contractors and the on -site review, it can be concluded that covering the gutters would be a less expensive solution
than repairing or rebuilding. The Commission may consider granting an exception in this situation, by considering the
information presented via the letters (attached herewith).
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2006
LOBBY 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: Sunil Terdalkar
OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Eldeen, Brenna Eldeen, Shelley McCafferty
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Certificate of Appropriateness:
1201 Seymour Avenue. Terdalkar said that this is the second application for a project at this
address. He added that this property is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic
District. Terdalkar said this application is for a two-story addition at the back of the property, with
the approximate footprint size of 26 feet by 24 feet.
McCafferty said the owners and the builder's representative were present at the meeting. She
said this is an application for an addition, as well as some modification to windows on the west
side of the existing house. McCafferty said that the back of the house has been changed from
the original; the dormer was added and patio doors were added, so that there are not really any
significant features on the back of the house at this time. She said the owners want to expand
toward the south with an addition to give additional bedrooms, a larger kitchen, and a sun porch.
McCafferty said that because of interior remodeling and reconfiguration of the rooms, the
owners would want to change the windows on the west side of the original house. She said that
the bathroom window would be moved further to the south, and the owners would like to install
taller casements on the master bedroom for privacy reasons and for flexibility with the spacing
of their furniture.
McCafferty pointed out that also on that side are currently two double-hungs at the attic level
that do not meet egress requirements. She said the owners would like to replace them with
casement windows designed to look like double-hungs. She said double -hung windows meeting
egress on the upper story would be so large that they would be out of scale with the house.
McCafferty said that on the back side of the house, there is a little room at the end of the gable
where the owners would like to install a circular window in the end of the gable. She said that it
is not really typical for a Tudor revival house, but the neighboring house has a round window in
Page 2
the gable end, so that there is a precedent for the round window. McCafferty said there is also a
round window in the arched door. Weitzel said that there is a round window in the house at 415
Clark Street, the house on Seymour Avenue, and in some houses in Manville Heights.
McCafferty said that the materials would comply with the guidelines. She said that either fiber
cement board or cedar shingles would be used for the siding. McCafferty said there would be
wood window and door trim to match the existing, and the metal clad double hung windows with
muntin bars on the exterior. She said that the foundation is concrete, so there will be no issue
with matching brick or stone.
Maharry asked about the reasoning for the size of the windows on the south elevation
compared to the windows on the rest of the house. McCafferty said the owners wanted more
light into that area, so she added a transom, while continuing the line of the window head
around, but adding the transom on top to keep the horizontal consistency. She added that
transoms are not uncommon in this style of house. McCafferty said that on the east side, there
will be high casements for the dining area, which is common in this style of house.
Maharry asked if the Commission had reviewed a lot of certificates for owner -occupied
structures in which the application proposed to change out windows for egress. McCafferty said
that egress is only required on an owner -occupied house for a remodel, in which case the owner
would have to bring the house up to Code, while rental properties have to meet the rental code
so that windows have to be changed out as rental permits expire.
McCafferty said that the egress requirements just apply to bedrooms, and there is only one
bedroom on the first floor. Maharry asked if it is required for this house to change out the
windows on the second floor. McCafferty responded that the windows would have to be
changed out to meet egress. She said that they were probably installed in the 1980s.
McCafferty said the upstairs is basically one big open space right now. She said that putting a
bedroom on the one end of the second story would require egress.
Maharry asked if the windows on the front roughly match the dimensions on the back.
McCafferty confirmed this, saying they are all very similar.
McCafferty stated that the pitch of the roof on the addition would match that of the main part of
the house. She said that the dormers themselves are pushed back from the end wall to express
the gable a little more strongly. McCafferty said that there are no corner boards, so the same
treatment will be used on the addition.
Weitzel said that it is important to have the motions reflect the wording of the certificates of
appropriateness as a matter of due process.
MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1201
Seymour, as per the discussion to follow. Gunn seconded the motion.
Maharry asked if a handrail was required down from the stairs to the patio. McCafferty said the
stairs and the lading are less than 30 inches.
Carlson said his question as always with these enormous additions is whether the Commission
has any say over the size of the addition. He stated that something that basically doubles the
footprint of the house does not strike him as something that would meet the Secretary of the
Interior Standards. Weitzel stated that the Secretary of the Interior Standards say that an
Page 3
addition has to be within scale, match the mass, and be subservient to the original part of the
building. He said that is pretty vague, and precedent -wise, there has been little that the
Commission has ever done to stop an addition that didn't go all the way to the back lot line.
Carlson said that when the guidelines were developed, there was some discussion with the City
Attorney about whether or not the Commission could limit the size of the addition. Gunn said the
Commission tried to write language allowing a limitation on the number of square feet that could
be added relative to the size of the original property to control the scale of the addition. He said
the Legal Department said the Commission could not enact such a limitation, as it is too strong
a violation of property rights. Gunn said the Commission could control the streetscape and the
appearance from the street. He said that since the Commission could not compel a square
footage limitation, it ended up doing the best it could architecturally.
McCallum said that underlying zoning does limit the size of a house to a percentage of the lot
size. Gunn said the Commission ended up with limitations having to do with the square footage
of the front fagade. He said they were an alternative to no control on the size of the addition.
Weitzel stated that the general prevalence of opinion in town is that people want to be able to
add on to their houses and don't want to be told what size the addition should be. He said that
one of the final statements of the due process pamphlet is that the Commission's decision has
to be a supportable decision by the community in which it exists. Enloe said that even if the
Commission cannot have a specific square foot limitation, it still can address the issue of scale.
McCafferty read from the Guidelines for Additions under Design, "...cannot diminish the
character of the historic structure... preserve significant historic materials and features,
decorative windows, brackets, trim, porches... design the addition so that it does not diminish
the character of the historic structure... distinguishing between the historic structure and the new
addition... matching key horizontal lines... materials similar... placing the addition at the rear of
the property... setting back from the sidewalls at least 18 inches..." She said that the addition in
this case would be set back 24 inches, and she thought the addition met all of the criteria.
Enloe agreed with Carlson that he is a little concerned with the 32-foot length of the addition
behind a house that is 28 feet long, and it at least raises the issue of scale. Enloe agreed that it
met the other criteria. He said it is the screened porch that makes the addition so long.
McCafferty stated that the screened porch is used to align the roof with the character of the
front. Weitzel said that it does actually break up the fagade there and makes it look smaller.
Maharry agreed that if it is broken up, it still appears large, but the shingles don't continue all the
way to the back of the built structure. He asked if there are any dimensions that could be cut
back.
McCafferty said that cutting back the dimensions would de-emphasize the gable, because the
dormers would not be set back as far from the front of the house. She said that the scale of that
wall will then appear to be larger.
Enloe said the transparency of the screened porch does lessen some of his worries about the
overall length of the addition. Gunn said the scale looks the most bothersome in plan. Ponto
said he feels that to someone going down the street or sidewalk, this will not significantly
change the feel of the neighborhood.
Page 4
McCafferty stated that the on the west side of the lot is a long garage and retaining wall so that
one has no view from the sidewalk to the west. She said that the house to the east has also had
an addition to the back so that it has also been elongated. McCafferty said that one would sense
very little of this addition from the neighborhood.
Enloe said that because it is set back and is semi -transparent at the back, he would not raise an
objection to the size of the addition. He said, however, that the other thing that concerns him is
the removal of the casement windows in the master bedroom, which would be part of the
streetscape and the removal of which would change the aspect of the historic part of the house.
McCafferty said the windows were being changed for functional design to add flexibility to the
room. She said there is also a privacy issue that the higher windows resolve. McCafferty said
that if there is enough concern, she could work on an alternative to that.
Weitzel agreed that that the replacement windows would be altering a historic part of the house.
He said the Commission would need to evaluate the impact of that on the house and the
neighborhood. Weitzel said that it is difficult to see the back two windows from anywhere except
for perhaps one angle as one walks down the sidewalk.
Enloe said that for potentially allowing a pretty massive addition to the house, he feels it is
important to maintain the historic character of the front part of the house. Ponto said he had no
problem with putting in a window for the new bathroom where the owners propose to move the
small window. Enloe said he would not have a problem with moving the bathroom window
either.
McCafferty showed a sketch of the owners' alternative proposal, which would rearrange the
windows that are there and put two windows in the bed room leaving enough space to arrange
the interiors. Enloe said he thought that would be more appropriate. McCafferty said the
windows would have the same feel as what is there now but would just have a different
arrangement, with one on either side of the bed. The owners said that would be acceptable to
them.
AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of
appropriateness for the proposal for 1201 Seymour Avenue with a revised drawing for
the arrangement of windows on the west elevation of the master bedroom. Gunn
seconded the amendment.
Carlson said he is still troubled by the size. He said that reading Section 5.1 of the Guidelines
refers to not diminishing the character of the structure. Carlson said that part of the character of
this house and other houses like it is that it is small. He said that doubling the size is not in
keeping with the historic character. Carlson said he is not opposed to an addition to this house
but is opposed to an addition of this size to this house.
The motion carried on a vote of 8-1. with Carlson votina no.
Minutes for January 19, 2005.
Carlson said that on page six of the minutes in the last paragraph, the words "demolition of the"
should be added after the words "...size and the..." He said that on page seven, in the last full
paragraph, the word "oriole" should be changed to "oriel."
Page 5
Weitzel said that on page three, in the fifth paragraph, last sentence, the word "some" should be
inserted between the words "that" and "things."
Maharry said that on page two, in the ninth paragraph, the sentence should be completed with
"...felt it was important to include this fact for her consideration when Svendsen redoes the
Preservation Plan."
MOTION: Carlson moved to approve the January 19, 2006 minutes of the Historic Preservation
Commission meeting, as amended. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
vote of 9-0.
OTHER:
Discussion of Annual Historic Preservation Awards.
Maharry said the nominations are currently open, but there is a March 15th deadline. He said
that nominations should be submitted to Helen Burford. Weitzel added that Burford asked the
Commission to go through its minutes from last year and see what it liked of those items that
had been approved. Terdalkar said that he had images of all but one or two properties. He
added that the announcement for the awards has been posted on the website.
Maharry said that one important qualification for an award is that the work needs to be
completed. Terdalkar said he should be able to check that through the permit process.
Maharry said he did not think there would be as many painting nominations because of the
condensed time period for these nominations — from August through spring. He asked Terdalkar
if he could put the nominated properties roughly into the categories. Terdalkar said he could put
them into the categories of additions, alterations, and new construction.
Terdalkar asked if there were any proposals/suggestions for the Margaret Nowysz award.
Maharry suggested that McCafferty be considered as a recipient.
Maharry asked, since the awards presentation might be fairly short this year, if anyone had
suggestions for other items for the program. He said that possibilities include having someone
speak to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Old Brick and/or someone to speak to
commemorate the reopening of the Old Capitol.
Maharry suggested having a list for consideration at the next meeting. He said that in the past
there have been about 20 total awards, but a lot of .those have been for painting. Terdalkar
suggested that the subcommittee and Friends of Historic Preservation review the list of
possibilities. Weitzel said that he, Maharry, and McCallum were previously on the
subcommittee.
Terdalkar said that the terms of four Commission members would be expiring soon: one at -large
position and three district positions.
The Commission discussed two houses, both on Clinton Street. Maharry said that the brick
Italianate at 335 South Clinton is for sale, and if someone wanted to buy it, the new owner could
demolish it. He suggested that there could be some historic aspect to the building or to
someone who lived or worked in the building.
Page 6
Weitzel said that the owner of the brick building at 530 North Clinton wants to raze it and
construct a new building on that lot. Weitzel said that the owner of 530 South Clinton is willing to
let it be moved. The Commission looked for empty lots in the vicinity to which the house could
be moved and discussed the expense of moving such a house. McCallum said that it may be
difficult to move a brick building. Weitzel stated that it would be worth looking into.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
NO
v O
� O
N N
on
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
EIIIIIIIIII
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
011111111
01111111111
01111111111
0111111u
M11111111NIIIIIIII
II II II II II
Y2xooz I
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
Preliminary
MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Justin
Pardekooper, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Brennan, James Enloe, Jan Weissmiller
STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Resolution of issues related to covering of built-in gutters:
Weitzel said that the Commission was meeting to review some changes in wording in Section 4.11 for
gutters and downspouts. He said the Commission is discussing the fact that there are several options
under Section 4.11; the only thing that is disallowed is altering the roof pitch. Weitzel said he recalled that
the Commission believed that a small pitch, just enough to allow water to run off, would be sufficient to
deal with water issues but also so minimal that it would not really change the noticeable appearance of
the house and would comply with the guidelines.
Carlson said that right now his memo did not propose any particular roof pitch. He said he was looking for
a consensus from the Commission that this would bean acceptable change. Carlson said that right now
the way the guideline is phrased and was interpreted when reviewing the application for 517 Grant Street
was that no change in pitch was allowed. He said that discussions with Shelley McCafferty and Weitzel's
discussions with Bob Miklo suggest that in fact the Commission's original intent for horizontal gutters was
to allow some small pitch for drainage. He said that in order to make that recommendation to the City
Council, he wanted to get the consensus of the Commission that it would indeed consider doing this and
that it would be a reasonable change to the guidelines to allow for a small pitch for drainage when
covering built-in gutters.
Gunn said that one of the solutions the Commission discussed in the past was that the gutters didn't have
to be dished with drains coming out of the bottom but that they could be covered with a slight pitch and
put the gutter around it. He said that was discussed when the guidelines were written and several times
since. Gunn said that no one ever talked about a porch roof being dead flat. He said there is always pitch,
even on an internal gutter; what is called a flat roof has a pitch. Gunn said the Commission talked about
the gutters themselves being quite a compromise, allowing an external gutter on what was originally an
internal gutter.
Carlson stated that there are three sections in his memo that are highlighted that need Commission
approval. He said that what is being proposed to resolve the issue in the 517 Grant Street case is to
retroactively grant a Certificate of Appropriateness using the Commission's power to grant a special
exception. Carlson said that approval would be based on the information that was presented to City
Council and to the Commission informally and the fact that given the way the Commission was
interpreting the guidelines for flat roofs earlier, there was no reasonable cost alternative for the owner at
that time. He said that given that state of affairs, the Commission would now clarify the wording of the
guidelines but retroactively approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the work that has been done,
given the confusion around the issue at the time.
Gunn asked what the state of the house is right now. Carlson said it is basically the same as it was when
the Commission denied the application back in September. He said it is a pitched roof of probably more
than the Commission would want to see, although at that time, some Commission members were willing
to let the project go as it was. Carlson said that at the time of the application, one side of the house was
done, and since then, the other side has been completed. Weitzel said the Building Department's letter to
the owner makes it clear that she is in violation but will not be fined until a solution can be worked out.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 2
Carlson said this issue should be brought up during the Preservation Plan review this summer. Weitzel
said he has not heard from Marlys Svendsen whether that is within the scope of the Plan review. He said
that in the grant proposal, the Commission actually specified getting a CLG for another grant to
investigate work flow issues and things of this nature. Terdalkar said the consultants will be reviewing the
guidelines for problems, as that was part of the RFP. He added that when a Commission representative
meets with the City Council formally or in a work session, these kinds of issues can be discussed.
McCallum said that he is concerned that the Building Code and the Historic Preservation Code need to be
consistent. He said that the Building Code section regarding windows is very clear about what needs to
be done in the districts, but the same pattern does not hold true for roofing. McCallum said he would like
to see clarity throughout the Building Code and believes that the contractor may not have known that a
building permit was required in this case.
Gunn said the discussion was never to have a pitch suitable for shingles; it was to have a pitch suitable
for some sort of flashing or EPDM or asphalt or something like that. Pardekooper said that the application
of EPDM is expensive, because a roofing contractor has to have his employees certified in order to do the
work or the warranty is void. He said that Acrymax is a good alternative to EPDM. Pardekooper said that
one thing to be addressed with these gutter systems is that he has seen some that have been done
perfectly. He said that he looked at the Grant Street house and felt that in specific areas where there was
leaking, there was maintenance done that built up around the seams of the tin that trapped water, which
coincided with where all the major water damage was inside the house.
Pardekooper said that keeping water damage from these old houses should be viewed as important as
keeping these houses going in their historical aspects. He said that water will ruin a house more quickly
than anything else, especially these historic houses because of all the wood elements. Pardekooper said
that a gambrel roof for which the roof slope cannot be changed is then capped, leaving a completely flat
roof where water won't go anywhere. He said that some emphasis on just the internal gutters should be
thought about. Pardekooper said that longevity -wise, there has to be a happy medium to preserve these
houses and not just the architectural styles of them. He said that internal gutters tend to be a problem.
Weitzel said that these lasted 80 years without any problem, which is a lot longer than any roof one can
get today. Pardekooper agreed but said that years ago there were a lot more homeowners who were
willing to work on their homes too, cleaning the gutters and maintaining them. He said the internal gutters
look great, but keeping water away from these homes is a huge concern for a lot of people. Pardekooper
said that allowing for a little bit of pitch to cover the gutters up and put external gutters on them, in this
kind of scenario, is just practical and reasonable.
Weitzel suggested using flashing back up the roof. Pardekooper asked if the idea then is to cap it flat and
then put a gutter system on it. Weitzel confirmed this and said that is what the Commission is allowing.
Pardekooper asked if this would still allow a flat roof but with a standard gutter on the outside. Weitzel
agreed and said that the Commission acknowledges that the gutter has to do something to keep from
getting to the foundation.
Pardekooper stated that there are a lot of old foursquares with flat front porch roofs. He said that for
those, it would be much easier to maintain a reasonable, nice -looking pitch. Weitzel said that most of
them are actually hipped inside. Pardekooper said it is a tricky situation. He asked how many houses
have a gambrel with internal gutters on it. Weitzel agreed that it is unusual but said that is why it is a
unique situation that the Commission needs to preserve.
The Commission discussed the use of EPDM. Weitzel said that at some level, he doesn't think the
Commission members can be the ones who determine who does the work. He said there are several
options still available, including EPDM, flashing, and Acrymax. Pardekooper said he thinks it will be a
hard sell to convince people to not want to cap these. He said he believes the contractor for 517 Grant
Street probably didn't think he needed a building permit and so did the most cost effective thing.
Weitzel said that what the Commission needs to determine is whether or not that alters the appearance of
the house. Pardekooper said that it does alter the appearance.
Maharry said that the City Council was prepared at the time of the homeowner's appeal to change the
guidelines right then and there. Weitzel said that he was concerned that the Commission would be setting
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 3
a precedent by changing this now. He said he is afraid this will turn into a driveway right through the
guidelines. Maharry said the Commission then needs to use appropriate wording to show that the
decision was made for an appropriate reason, rather than the homeowner appealing a decision with
which she was unhappy.
Maharry said if the Commission is going to allow minimal roof slope modifications, he thought that could
be justification for going back and looking at the 517 Grant Street application. Weitzel stated that he
would rather not approve that project, from a pervasive, overall perspective. He said that from the
beginning, this has been because of a general precedence.
Ponto asked what the minimum would be. Maharry said that is what a majority gets to decide. He said
that would at least open it up, because right now, there is nothing allowed. Pardekooper said that visually,
three would be the maximum. Terdalkar said that anything below 10% pitch is considered a flat roof, and
the Commission could put a cap at that level. He said that would be the minimal slope needed to drain out
the water. Pardekooper said that it would drain water at that pitch.
Maharry asked if the Building Code currently defines a flat roof as one with a less than 10% pitch.
Terdalkar said that conventionally the construction definition of a flat roof includes those with a slope of
up to 10%, but he did not know if there was a definition in the Building Code. Maharry said that if the
Commission defines a flat roof as having a slope of up to 10%, that allows approvability for something
that is not completely horizontal.
Weitzel said he talked to the contractor for 517 Grant Street and said that the contractor grew up in the
neighborhood and is used to a cheap, quick repair. Weitzel said that is fine for most houses, but the
historic district requires a higher standard. He said that people had the chance to oppose the historic
district at the time the discussions for designation went on. Weitzel said that this is something most
architectural historians and architects would agree is a change in appearance.
Terdalkar said the guidelines could specify a ten degree slope. Gunn said that would make it something
less than one in nine. Pardekooper said that even one in twelve will shed water fine. He said that one in
twelve will also work with the wording with the horizontal blocking. Pardekooper said the blocking would
need to be done in such a way that as the blocking is growing and being tied back in with steeper of the
internal gutter, one could still maintain just enough fall to get the water to drain. He said that covering that
is another discussion, but the horizontal blocking could still be put into place. Pardekooper said one would
then allow for an external gutter with a normal downspout, and water should shed. He said that there
would still need to be backflashing up the plane of the roof, but it should work with no problem.
Pardekooper said that a roofer in the City, R. C. Wemberly, told him about a peel and stick product made
by Certain Teed that works well on short sections. He said that it is designed for flatter roofs, and the
color can be matched.
Carlson asked what surface materials would work for a one in twelve grade. Pardekooper said that EPDM
would work. He said that rubber would drain water but would break down over a period of time.
Pardekooper said that one could ice and water shield and probably do a three-inch reveal and shingles.
Weitzel said the Commission might want to consider going back to the design/technical manual and
having the list of products there instead of in the guidelines.
Pardekooper questioned whether there was a better way to let building contractors know about these
kinds of issues. Weitzel said the CLG was designed to look at those kinds of staffing/work flow issues.
Maharry said the first highlighted area of the memo looks fine to him. Carlson said he assumed that there
would need to be more research done on slopes and materials, although he wanted to get a consensus
for the purposes of the memo that some slope is permissible.
Regarding this application, Weitzel said he did not see why the Commission would have to allow it. He
said the work is done now, and the Commission's action could be not to tear it off, but the Commission
doesn't have to approve it. Weitzel pointed out that the Commission did not approve the demolition of the
structure on Governor Street but didn't make the owner build it back up either. Maharry said the
Commission could change the guidelines but does not need to change its opinion about that application.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 4
Carlson asked about the wording regarding the resolution of 517 Grant Street. Weitzel suggested
including the wording that the Historic Preservation Commission considers the matter closed. Maharry
said that if HIS chooses not to enforce this, the Commission is not the police. He said there are no
repercussions for doing this.
Gunn said that right now the City is looking to the Historic Preservation Commission to end this issue
under its authority. He said he thinks it is counterproductive to just ignore the issue. Gunn said the
Building Department and the City Council are trying to get the Commission's approval, so if the
Commission says that it is okay to just do whatever, it opens the door for that kind of action in the future.
Weitzel said the guidelines call this disallowed. He said if the Commission allows it at this point, he is
concerned that anyone who disapproves of the guidelines will go ahead and do what he wants, because
he doesn't have to follow the guidelines. Gunn said that is possible but said that it won't happen on a
gutter again. He said if the Commission invites people to ignore its rulings, he thinks it is a mistake.
Maharry said he thinks what this does is encourage people to appeal decisions when the Commission
denies their applications. He said it gives them more impetus to go to the City Council and complain,
whether they're right or not. Maharry said then the City Council comes back on the Commission, which is
a bad precedent. Gunn said that the Commission wins most of those.
Maharry said the Commission could bend over completely backward and retroactively approve the Grant
Street application. He said, however, that based on the new wording, it probably still would not pass.
Carlson agreed that the application probably still would not pass. He said his idea was that because there
was some confusion at the time, the Commission would approve the project.
Weitzel said he still did not think the Commission needs to do too much with this, because there are
several other things that HIS has chosen not to enforce in the last two years that the Commission doesn't
have any say over. Carlson said the Commission could say that it voted, and since there is no application
under consideration, the Commission has no further obligation. Weitzel said that is legally correct; the
Commission does not really have the legal option to go back and open up cases and change the vote.
Gunn said he thought the Commission could reconsider any question it wants to consider.
Weitzel said the Commission goes through sort of a minor court process, and once the Commission has
held its hearing and made its decision, it is recorded and put into effect. He said that if the Commission
can't go back and change something that it did like, it should also be that the Commission can't go back
and change something it didn't like. Weitzel said that is just due process.
Maharry said the Commission could limit its scope. He said the Commission is doing what the City
Council asked it to do in reviewing the historic preservation guidelines that disallow this and is, in fact,
going to change it.
Ponto said that if the Commission were going to approve this application under Section 3.6, there should
be an application to ask for that. Weitzel and Maharry agreed. Ponto said that otherwise it would be an
arbitrary and capricious decision. Carlson said he fully agrees and said there has been some suggestion
on the part of staff that the Commission should not ask for another application. Terdalkar said that he also
believes this would need some kind of application to consider it.
Weitzel left the meeting at 7:51, and Carlson took over as Chair of the meeting.
Gunn said that there was a time when the Commission was afraid to ban aluminum or vinyl siding on
historic homes and also had no way to prevent demolition. He said the Commission tiptoed around these
issues and debated for a year before it addressed these situations with guidelines. Gunn said the
Commission has lost all of that concern about the politics and property rights of it. He said he thought the
Commission should tread a little more softly. Gunn said the Commission now has guidelines, and
although it sometimes hits rough patches, the best thing to do may be to draft a carefully written memo
and send it off and then go on. He said the last thing the Commission wants to do is offend a lot of people
in the City and in potential future districts with historic preservation. Gunn said that perhaps the
Commission should be a little bit more humble.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 5
Maharry said that there was not much leeway with this application. He said the Commission is proposing
to change something that other cities might not consider changing.
Pardekooper said one of the things to address with this particular issue is that if there is no regulation of
roofing, then if the Building Department doesn't see the address and it doesn't come up that the property
is in a preservation district, the Commission can change this but the situation will occur again. He stated
that if roofing is not regulated, there is no way for the Building Department to know this is even
happening.
Maharry said that there is an annual letter sent to notify property owners in historic and conservation
districts. He asked Terdalkar if roofing is included in the wording. Terdalkar said he thought the wording
included something about external gutters but not anything about built-in gutters. Pardekooper said that
changing the wording is necessary, but there should also be a way to let people know about the
guidelines regarding internal gutters.
Maharry said that in the memo, the Commission should probably include some of the discussion
regarding the runoff. He said there needs to be evidence presented about why the Commission is
changing the wording. Carlson said that from past discussion, he believed that this was part of the original
idea when the guidelines were put together, although it was not clear in the guidelines. He said that this is
not a change in the guidelines so much as a clarification.
Gunn said that coil stock is another option for working with internal gutters. Pardekooper said that they
can be lined with new coil stock, which is thicker than tin. He said that the bigger issue is regulating this.
Pardekooper said that as one drives through these neighborhoods, vinyl siding or windows are easy to
see, but an internal gutter system is not something that can be seen casually.
Maharry said that the Commission revisited this issue and is making clarifications. He suggested that the
Commission then call for more regulation of roofing in general.
Terdalkar pointed out that a permit is not required for the reroofing of a single-family home or duplex if
there is no structural change. He said that if the work requires structural review, then a permit is required.
Terdalkar said that all multi -family buildings are reviewed for re -shingling, because there are different
standards for what is applied.
Gunn said he doesn't really like what was done on Grant Street or agree with it, but he believes the flak
created is detrimental to historic preservation in the long run, and the best thing to do is to just turn one's
head and go on. He said it is a concession to someone, but he would rather retroactively approve the
project than to say just ignore the Commission. Gunn said he would rather have a letter from staff saying
it should be reviewed, if that's what it takes to get it back on the table, review it, and approve it. He said
the Commission could win this one, but it may give up hundreds of properties in the future.
Ponto said that because of all the confusion, he would be willing to consider the project and possibly
approve it under Section 3.6. He said, however, that he would like to see it come before the Commission
as some type of application.
Maharry said that if the applicant reapplies, he thought the Commission could approve under Section 3.6,
but until the change in 4.11 is approved, the Commission can't change its vote based on something that
hasn't been officially approved yet. Gunn pointed out that this is not a change but is a guideline
clarification. He said it should have been made clear in the guidelines that a minor slope was a realistic
possibility. Gunn said Carlson has written a nicely drafted memo to put this behind the Commission, so
that people think of historic preservation as a good thing.
Ponto said he liked the first sentence of the third highlighted paragraph, "...the Commission is prepared to
exercise its power to make a special exception..." He said that points out that the Commission will review
it if it receives another application. Carlson said it has been suggested that it would be easier to take the
information already presented, rather than asking the applicant to come back again. Ponto said that the
applicant does not need to attend another meeting. He said, however, that the Commission needs to see
an application that asks for a special exception.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 6
Maharry suggested that Terdalkar call the applicant and tell her he would fill out a form for her, letting her
know that the Commission would re -vote and that the vote would probably be favorable. Maharry said
Terdalkar could inform her that the issues have been resolved, but the Commission needs another
application to vote on it.
Carlson said he could insert a sentence in the memo asking the applicant to resubmit an application to
reopen this issue. He said he could also include some wording stating that the Commission is open to
considering some other mechanism by which it could reconsider this legally. Gunn suggested asking the
Legal Department about this.
Terdalkar said the City Council received a letter from the homeowner which was included in its most
recent information packet. He said the Commission is trying to get a response to the City Council as soon
as possible.
Maharry said the second highlighted paragraph in the memo could be removed, although the rest is fine.
Carlson said it was suggested that the conclusion be put right up front, and then the second highlighted
paragraph was supposed to give more detail about the first paragraph. Maharry suggested that the
wording in the second highlighted paragraph be changed to "...The final conclusion of the Commission is
that the present wording of Section 4.11 does not make clear that a minimal slope for drainage is
permissible when..." to "...The final conclusion of the Commission is that the present wording of Section
4.11 does not make clear that a minimal slope for drainage has been permissible when..." He said that
would clarify that some slope has always been permissible.
Pardekooper read under disallowed, "Roof slope — altering the roof slope near the gutter when covering
historic building gutters." He said that the roof slope at 517 Grant Street is 24:12, it's a gambrel.
Pardekooper said that with that language, one could go as high as he wants then. He said one could do a
three, a four, a five, or a six. Pardekooper said that if the owner has a massive roof slope, he could put
about whatever he wanted there.
McCallum said that the owner did this with rough sheathing, just plywood. He said the Building Code says
that a building permit is not required unless one is replacing more than 50% of the rough sheathing.
McCallum said that if the owner wanted to take this to court, he thought she would prevail. He said he
wondered if that is why the Building Department is reluctant to enforce this.
Terdalkar said that the project has resulted in adding more roof surface by covering the gutters, not re -
sheathing or replacing part of the sheathing and that is the reason a building permit is required, under
review for structural changes. Terdalkar said that if the conditions were different had used a thinner
plywood or a longer span, she would need to have it supported with rafters, which would need to be tied
into the rafters from the original roof, these changes warrant a structural review. Terdalkar said that since
the project was not reviewed for structural safety, only the contractor can tell accurately what materials
were used and was the method used to cover the gutters. He said that because HIS doesn't even have
the owner's application for review to decide if the change is structurally sound. Terdalkar said the
applicant is in violation for that, which resulted in the letter from the City.
Gunn said that the implication from the language is that one can cover internal gutters if it is done right.
He said that even when the Commission wrote the wording, it had in mind that internal gutters could be
covered, but with a gentle pitch and a gutter on the outside.
Pardekooper said that when someone asks his roofing contractor to deal with internal gutters, the
contractor will do something just like this. Carlson asked if that is because the wording in the Building
Code is interpreted to allow less than a 50% change in sheathing. McCallum said that is why the Building
Code needs to be clarified. Terdalkar said that adding to the sheathing creates more roof surface.
The consensus of the Commission was that Carlson's memo was good. Gunn said that the memo could
also suggest a clarification of the language in the Building Code. Maharry suggested adding a sentence
regarding the Commission's need for an application to review, regarding 517 Grant Street.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 7
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
s: /pcd/minutes/hpct2OO6HPCminutes/02-22-06. doc
M*
101111111111
0111111-1111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
lll�
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
01111111111
millililill
01111111111
01111111111
Emmmmmm
91111111
1