The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-10-2008 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, April 10, 2008 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda 3. Election of Chair 4. Consent Agenda: 521 S. Governor Street 5. Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. 415 S. Governor Street 2. 411 S. Governor Street 6. Discussion of Melrose Neighborhood 7. Consideration of minutes for March 13, 2008 8. Other 9. Adjournment Iowa CM, Historic Preservation Commission Citv 1 [all, 410 E XV.)shiligion Srrcct, ]o)wa [A. 52240 MEMORANDUM Date: April 4, 2008 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner Re: Election of Historic Preservation Chair At the March 13 meeting, in his absence, the HPC elected Jim Ponto as the Chair of the Commission. Jim has turned down the position and a new Chair will need to be elected at the beginning of the meeting on April 10. Staff Report April 2, 2008 Historic Review for 521 S. Governor Street District: Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Non -Contributing The applicants, Grace and Whitey Piro, are requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 521 Governor Street, a non-contributing property the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. They are seeking approval to construct a porch roof above the rear entry of the one-story addition on the west side of the house. The addition was approved on December 13, 2007. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Staff Comments The house was originally built in c. 1915 and has been significantly altered at an unknown date. Sanborn maps (1920, 1926 and 1933) show a simple two—story I —shaped house with what appears to be a three —bay front facade with slightly projected central bay. A small one-story addition can be seen at the back of the house. It appears that the addition was removed and the house was altered sometime in the late 1930s or early 1940s to its current configuration and roof profile. The original siding has also been covered with vinyl siding. The house may have been built with minimal features or the original stylistic features have been removed when the alterations were carried out. The mass of the house, the original roofline and window proportions suggest that the house may have been built with some early 20th Century Revival or Vernacular influences. The Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to this property on December 13, 2007. The applicants are proposing to add a roof above the rear entry of the one-story addition on the west side of the house. The roof extension would cover the porch landing and steps already approved. One column is needed as support on the corner of the roof. In staffs opinion, the roof over the porch is in accordance with the guidelines and the previously approved addition. Staff recommends approval of this roof as proposed in the application. Al.. ication for Historic ReN w Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ww `�-' ties 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 Date submitted .................:....lJ....[............... of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at www. W Certificate of Appropriateness kgov.org/HPhondbook ❑ Major review Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. ❑ Intermediate review During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. ❑ Minor review Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Owner ......�1 .f.�.....` ..wY �:!� .........J.. '.�........ Phone......... ...-.........z.�...1......................................... Address ......1............:L....lr n.Y?................... email................................................................................................ ❑ Contractor ...A.,�G � J`.. Q � ...... .... Address-1.7............. 2 �f ........��.................................... Phone......EJ............................................ Ur... ....... email.... le-n cv ❑ Consultant .. ............................................................. Address.......................................................................................... Phone...................................................................................... email............................................................................................ Application Requirements Attic ed are the following items: WK Site plan — /Floor plans V�' Building elevations Photographs V ;(A ❑ 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 de- scribe 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........ ........ r..... .�? '�'f�.... Use of property ............ >!. .. ........: ? ..:....... .................. Date constructed (if known).........1.................................. Historic Designation ❑ 'This property is a local historic landmark OR ❑ This property is located in the: ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ 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 Q Lucas -Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ❑ Contributing PI-INoncontributing ❑ 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) P,-' 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.............................................................................................. Page 1 of 1 Christina Kuecker From: Bob Miklo Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:54 AM To: Christina Kuecker Subject: FW: Piro Residence 521 South Governor Attachments: Piro Porch Roof.jpg Christina - please pull the file for this. From: John Martinek [mailto:jnmartinek@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:33 AM To: Bob Miklo Subject: Piro Residence 521 South Governor Hi Bob, Grace Piro (521 S. Governor) would very much like us to add a small roof over the top of the back door on her addition. This was not in the originial set of plans. Everything else will stay the same as what was in the originial set of plans. We would just need to add a post and the small roof section. Please let us know if this is ok. I have attached a drawing for your review. Please call myself (631-0408) or Scott McDonough (631-0405) if you have any questions. Thanks, John Martinek McDonough Structures Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 3/20/2008 Staff Report April 2, 2008 Historic Review for 415 S. Governor Street District: Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Non -Contributing On behalf of the Bethel A.M.E. Church, the applicants, Rev. Dial and Melvin Shaw, are requesting approval for a proposed demolition project at 415 S. Governor Street, a non-contributing property the Governor - Lucas Street Conservation District. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments The house was originally built in 1940s or 50s and has not been significantly altered. The house is a non- contributing structure within the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District The applicants are proposing to demolish the building to make room for a proposed addition to the Bethel A.M.E. Church at 411 S. Governor Street. Staff recommends approval of this demolition with the condition that demolition only occur once all approvals of the proposed addition are made. If the proposed addition is not approved by all entities, it is important to keep the building, rather than having a vacant lot. A vacant lot would disrupt the rhythm and appearance of the street. Suggested Motion Motion to approve the demolition of 415 S. Governor Street, subject to the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness and Special Exception by the Board of Adjustment for addition at 411 S. Governor Street. App-lication for Historic Re 'ew Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourthThursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) Owner .. Q...!..... .....f...�:F.. 'V!��............... Phone..... ��.............................................................................. Address ...`f.��...�.},5,:..f.d/' YL?5(L...S............................. r....L::."j..I.... . ................................zip ................... � email................................................................................................ Contractor .....see..........KA�!` ...Z`�.fi...�,�.�.... Address.......{��.................�.eia .................................................................................zip ................... Phone............................................................................................. email............................................................................................... Consultant................................................................................ Address......................................................................................... ........ ...................... I .................................................. zip .................. Phone.............................................................................................. email............................................................................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: M Site plan E] Floor plans Building elevations F Photographs Product information Other.............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. For Staff Use: Date submitted....................................................... ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information Address of property... 1-H...... :....Gj.C?Vn!.nC!V.,..`! .....!4............ ...............Z`....................r........... Use of property ... t.�6 .......4!!'l!s114'�?L,, Date constructed (if known) .......... k.a.SO.a................................... 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 rl College Hill Conservation District V earborn Street Conservation District overnor-Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: 0 Contributing Noncontributing r] Nonhistoric Project Type Q Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) Q ition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) Construction of new building Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance 0 Other.............................................................................................. Project description .................................................... W--�d......... ........................... ............... .. .... ....... fib �-,--t ... AJ ............................... ............................................................................................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Materials to be used ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Staff Report April 4, 2008 Historic Review for 411 Governor Street District: Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Key -Contributing, Local Landmark On behalf of the Bethel A.M.E. Church, the applicants, Rev. Dial and Melvin Shaw, are requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 411 South Governor Street, which is a contributing property in the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. It is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The applicants intend to construct an addition measuring approximately 45 feet x 75 feet at the rear of the existing church. The proposed structure will be approximately 23 feet in height. The applicants also intend to 1) alter the existing front porch by removing the existing partial enclosure, 2) replacing the front steps with wood stairs (with lattice work) and reorienting 90 degrees toward the south, and 3) close the existing exterior entryway to the basement, replace the door with a window, and remove the shelter for the entryway. For the addition, the applicants propose to use brick veneered foundation, fiber cement board siding, aluminum -clad wood windows, aluminum gutters and downspouts, and cement board soffits. The entry on the addition will be cement board siding with some limestone detailing. In December 2006, the Commission reviewed and approved an alternate addition. However, due to the property's status as a National Register site the plans were forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office. Comments from Jack Porter, the SHPO Preservation Consultant, were received after the Commission's decision. Mr. Porter raised concerns about the addition's effect on the property's National Register status. Because of these concerns, the applicant decided to change the proposed addition and is seeking approval from the Commission. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Secretary oflnterior's Standards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties Staff Comments The original church was built in 1868 and according to the Iowa Site Inventory Form; it is one of the few remaining structures of its kind in the state of Iowa. It is a modest one story, simple -gabled roof frame structure with little exterior ornamentation. Its size, scale, proportions, and fenestration are more similar to a domestic structure than that of a religious structure. This was one of the earliest buildings (can be seen on an 1868 Iowa City map) built in this area sometimes mentioned as Charles H. Berryhill's Second Addition to Iowa City. In September 2000, this property was, listed on the National Register for Historic Places. The National Register Nomination provides a comprehensive account of the Church, how it has survived over 138 years, and continues to serve its members as a social and religious institution. In 1868, James Howard purchased the land where that church stands today, from Charles Berryhill. After ten years, he sold the southern half of lot to the trustees of the `First African Methodist Episcopal Church'. Howard founded the Church and was one of three trustees of the church. It appears that the original lot purchased by Howard was 80 feet wide. A parsonage building, built in 1893, existed behind the church until 1988 and was used as the residence of the pastor. In the early 1920s, the foundation walls of the church were raised to build a basement. Page 1 of 4 The property is located in a residential neighborhood, and is zoned as Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS-12). Religious/Private Group Assembly uses are allowed in RNS-12 only after a special exception approval from the Board of Adjustment (BOA). This is also applicable to the expansion of an existing religious use. Due to the site constraints, it would not be possible to meet the setback and parking requirements for the resulting use with the proposed addition. Therefore, the applicants are seeking approval for a special exception from the BOA as per 14-2-A-7 Special Provisions B. 1. Hi tonic Preservation Exceptions of the zoning code. This provision allows for waiver or modification of any dimensional or site developmental standards that would prevent use or occupancy of a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The section states: The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 144B of this Title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article 14-4B, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicants must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. One of the special exception approval criteria is obtaining a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. Another criterion that must be met is that the waiver or modification will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property. Therefore, the Commission is charged with the duty to consider this proposal and find whether the addition would be compatible with the existing historic structure, surrounding properties and the neighborhood, while considering the need to expand the structure. As the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines do not clearly address rehabilitation of non- residential buildings, the project should be reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The applicable standards are: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. In this case, to allow for an expanded congregation the proposed changes are not minimal. Although the property itself would be used for its historic purpose, the sanctuary would not. However, the applicants do propose for the original sanctuary to be restored to its historic interior and used for exhibit, meeting, and office space. In Staff s opinion, as discussed in more detail below, under standard number 9, the scale and design of the proposed addition would change the defining characteristics of the building and Page 2 of 4 its site and environment. However, the proposed addition does not diminish the importance of the historic structure . 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. See comments under standard number 1 above. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings shall not be undertaken. The applicants do not propose any major changes to the historic structure. The two entry shelters that are to be removed are not original to the church. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings -New Additions published by the National Park Services provide further guidance on this issue. The guidelines encourage exploring all the options for incorporating the new use by altering the non -character -defusing interior spaces of the existing structure. Staff recognizes that the applicants would not be able to meet the space needs of a growing congregation in the existing structure. In such instance, the guidelines state that the additions are acceptable if they are designed and built so that the character -defusing features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of rehabilitation. Staff believes that the most significant and character -defining feature of this building is its modest Mid-19th Century architecture. Therefore, primary design consideration should address the massing, size, scale issues. The placement of the proposed buildings on site is also an important factor that would affect the existing structure. The guidelines recommend locating the addition at the rear or inconspicuous side of the historic building and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building. The proposed building is at the rear of the existing church. The proposed addition would measure approximately 79 feet in length, 45 feet in width, and 23 feet in height. The existing structure measures approximately 30 feet in length, 21 feet in width and 24 feet in height. The structure is located on a lot measuring approximately 40 feet in width and 150 feet in length. It would occupy a much larger percentage of its lot than the existing church or the residential buildings in this neighborhood. However, the applicants have acquired the adjacent parcel at 415 S. Governor Street and are proposing to demolish the existing non-contributing building on that parcel. This provides a larger lot for the expansion of the church. Page 3 of 4 The existing building will be connected with the proposed addition with a `breezeway', which would be 8 feet long. The breezeway would serve as a distinguishing separation between the old and new church. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. In staff's opinion, the proposed addition would allow for the expansion of the church congregation. Because of the desire to restore the existing sanctuary to its historic interior, the original church would not be a secondary structure to the addition. Although the original church would no longer be used as the sanctuary, it would still retain its historic integrity and serve as an important space in the church. Staff believes that the proposed addition to the church would honor and maintain the historic character of the church. Although a much larger footprint, the addition is compatible with the scale of the existing structure and does not overwhelm the historic church. The addition is slightly subordinate in height to the historic structure. The connection between the exiting and proposed building is of adequate depth to achieve a separation between the old and new structures. The integrity of the existing sanctuary is maintained to the extent possible and any future uses will reflect the existence of the sanctuary. Staff has met with the applicants and made suggestions on several aspects of the design. The applicants have made changes and been cooperative in the application process. It is the desire of the applicants to achieve a compatible addition that would not diminish the historic nature of the existing church. Staff recommends approval of the addition at 411 S. Governor St, Bethel A.M.E. Church, as presented in the application subject to the following changes/conditions: • Use of fiber -cement -board siding of the same profile as the original church. • Use of aluminum -clad, wood windows in the addition and in the new window proposed for the foundation of the existing church. • Use of wood or fiber -cement -board soffits • The front stairs replaced with wood stairs with latticework. • The handrails being compatible with 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines • The restoration of the interior of the historic church for use as exhibit, meeting, or office space, such that it can be easily recognized and reused as the original sanctuary of the building. Page 4of4 Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.ic,gov.org/HPhandbook Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the seconclThursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) El Bethel A.M.E. Church Owner......................................................................................... See attached Phone.............................................................................................. Address....................................................................................... .................................................................................zip ................... email................................................................................................ ElContractor ..Apex..CAQnstr.^... CQ...,.... Znc.................. Address .., See attached ..................................................................... .................................................................................zip ................... Phone.............................................................................................. email................................................................................................ DConsultant ...James L. Schoenfelder & Assoc. .................................................................. Address ...See attached ................................................................ ................................................................................zip ................... Phone.............................................................................................. email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: UJ Site plan Floor plans Building elevations Photographs Product information QOther.............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. For Staff Use: M1 Date submitted ...........................`....... ........... ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness LOK Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information Address of property.411-2...... Gome.r or..S.t... .................... Iowa City Iowa..5224Q ......................................................................................... Use of property ... Religi-ous ......................................................... Date constructed (if known) circa 1868 ............................................................... Historic Designation This property is a local historic landmark OR/apJ E] This property is located in the: E] Brown Street Historic District E] College Green Historic District East College Street Historic District Longfellow Historic District Summit Street Historic District Woodlawn Historic District Q Clark Street Conservation District El College Hill Conservation District Dearborn Street Conservation District Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: 0 Contributing Noncontributing Nonhistoric Project Type 10 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) Q Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) Q Construction of new building E] Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance QOther.............................................................................................. Project description ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... See attached ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Materials to be used ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... See attached ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... See attached ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Owner: Bethel A.M.E. Church, Rev. Orlando R. Dial, Pastor; Melvin O. Shaw, Steward, Richard J. Walker, Steward Phone: (319) 338-7876; (319) 230-2077; (319) 430-3434 Address: 411 S. Governor Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 E-mail: odial.5542 &msn.com; meloshaw a yahoo.com; rich-walkerL&hawkeyesports.com Contractor: Apex Construction Company, Attn: Harvey Miller Address: 4218 Yvette Street, P.O. Box 2297, Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Phone: (319) 339-1543 E-mail: Consultant: James L. Schoenfelder & Associates, Inc. Address: 4841 Southchase Court, Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Phone: (319) 354-5271; (319) 354-4451 E-mail: jimscho(j?mchsi.com Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Site Plan Main and Lower Level Elevations Preliminary Site Sketch Photographs of Bethel A.M.E. Church (Current and Historic) Property Information Address: 411 S. Governor Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Property Use: Religious Assembly in RNS-12 Zone Constructed: 1868 Historic Designation Bethel A.M.E. Church is a national and state historic landmark Bethel A.M.E. is located in the Longfellow Historic District and the Lucas -Governor Conservation District Classification Contributing Project Type Alteration of an existing building Project Description The members of Bethel A.M.E. Church, 411 S. Governor Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240, propose to remodel and expand the existing church facility, which has served as a place of Application for Historic Review Bethel A.M.E. Church March 24, 2008 Page 2 of 4 religious worship to thousands of members, visitors, and others in the Iowa City -area community since 1868. The existing structure, as shown by the accompanying photographs, has not undergone a substantial renovation in more than 50 years. Further, because of limited amenities and space of the existing structure, the current members and visitors of the church lacks adequate space to grow the membership of the church beyond the current capacity of 50 to 60 persons. Also, because of space limitations, efforts to increase participation in services by way of increased visitor attendance at the church have been forestalled. Moreover, long -laid plans for the church to become further involved in Iowa City -area community.events have been hampered because of inadequate space and amenities, such as meeting rooms for member- and community - focused programming. For the above reasons and others, the members of Bethel A.M.E. Church have undertaken efforts to renovate and expand the current facility to provide modern, comfortable amenities and to accommodate a growing congregation. Apex Construction Company, Inc., and architectural firm James L. Schoenfelder & Associates, Inc. have provided the Bethel A.M.E. Renovation and Expansion Project Committee with assistance in the preparation of construction drawings. These drawings are the result of more than two year's of consultation with members of the church, various staff of the City of Iowa City Planning and Development, individuals of various historic preservation groups, meetings with property owners in the Longfellow Historic District, and other groups and individuals. The submission of this Application marks the second time Bethel A.M.E. Church has appeared before this Commission for the purposes of obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. In December 2006, this Commission voted nearly unanimously to grant a Certificate to Bethel A.M.E. based on the design drawings presented at that time. Since 2006, Bethel A.M.E. has been at work to obtain a favorable recommendation of staff of the Planning and Development for a variance by the Board of Adjustment. A variance is needed in order for the church to obtain an exemption from the zoning regulations that affect the renovation of the current facility. More than four versions of draft design drawings have been prepared for Bethel A.M.E. as a result of numerous meetings and discussions with Planning and Development staff. Several of these designs have been presented to the Planning and Development staff for comment. Also, substantial fund-raising dollars have been spent on these draft drawings and costs associated with obtaining a favorable recommendation. For example, because of Planning and Development staff recommendations and rejections of various designs on the theory of inadequate existing land to accommodate the planned increase of church attendees, Bethel A.M.E. purchased the Lot 18, which is adjacent to and south of the church. This lot was purchased after several discussions with Planning and Development staff and the staffs opinion that the two lots together can accommodate the new addition without interfering with the use and enjoyment of property by surrounding property owners and to better comply with city zoning requirements. The attached design drawings represent deliberate planning on behalf of Bethel A.M.E. Church to devise a design that retains the high degree of historic integrity of the existing structure, keeping in mind time and place of the structure, and the cultural significance of the church to the neighborhood and Iowa City. These drawings are based on research of this historic property and to the extent possible, incorporate design comments made by this Commission in 2006 and recommendations made by Planning and Development staff. Not every suggestion made by the staff could be incorporated into the proposed design given the current and Application for Historic Review Bethel A.M.E. Church March 24, 2008 Page 3 of 4 anticipated interior needs of the church, and because of spatial limitations of the property. Specifically, the addition that expands the footprint of the church is compatible with the design of the historic building and otherwise attempts in every aspect to abide by the Iowa City Guidelines for Additions, as set forth in Section 5.0 of the Iowa City Historic Handbook. Further, the design preserves various historic features of the church, such as windows and east entry. The addition and historic structure are clearly distinguishable by way of a 4' 8" connecting breezeway, offsetting walls, entry doors and other features. Moreover, the roofline and mass of the addition is consistent with the existing building and has a proportion that is similar to the historic structure. The new addition and exterior alterations do not involve destruction of historic materials but includes replacement of worn materials and structural improvements that currently make up the existing historic structure, such as a shored -up porch, replacement of steps and handrails for safety. A smartly -designed extension will serve to connect the existing and new structures so as to retain the essential form and integrity of the historic property without substantial impact or impairment of the historic structure or its environment. The new addition and alterations are compatible with the purpose of the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization Zone (RNS-12) in that the church preserves and encourages the single-family residential character of the Longfellow Historic District and the Lucas -Governor Conservation District. The new addition and alterations are further consistent with the provisions for special exception under Section 14- 413-3. A separate application will be made to the Board of Adjustment seeking the grant of a special exception. Additionally, the addition design complies with the provisions of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The plans as submitted are lot -sensitive, site -sensitive, and the landscaping is modest and compatible with the existing neighborhood. The historic character of the property and the overall look and design are retained and preserved as a place of religious assembly. Main Level The plans call for an expansion of the size of the Main Level of 71' 4" feet. The current length of the building is 30 feet. A 4' 8" breezeway will distinguish and connect the new addition and the historic structure. The Main Level will include, for the first time, areas for reception, an office, coats, and bathroom, as well as an ADA compliant wheelchair lift, and a sanctuary that seats approximately 150 persons. The existing structure accommodates only 50 persons and lacks space and amenities which are commonly found in places of worship. Lower Level The plans for the Lower Level call for an expansion of the Lower Level to be consistent with the Main Level. The Lower Level will include, for the first time, a mechanical/storage area, and areas for a Fellowship Hall for meal services, separate female/male restrooms, and a rear building egress. Basement wall that will be exposed with have Exterior Insulating Finishing System that will provide exterior walls with an insulated finished surface. Application for Historic Review Bethel A.M.E. Church March 24, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Materials to be Used The Exterior of the building will include: • Foundation —poured concrete wall with brick veneer-4" concrete interior finished floor; • Thirty-year Timberline Asphalt Shingles; • Windows —Vinyl Clad, insulated Low E, Argon Gas; • Brick —Standard size, burnt red color or buff -brown; • Aluminum gutters and downspouts; • Siding —Cement Board, Lap Siding to match existing building; and • Soffitt—Aluminum painted in color to match siding The Interior of the Main Level will include: • Carpet throughout; • Wood doors/jambs/casing/base stained; • Drywall textured and painted; • Wheelchair lift; and • Mechanical and electrical work as required The Interior of the Lower Level will include: • VCT throughout with vinyl base; • Acoustical ceilings; • Wood door and frames; • Aluminum door at west exit; • TGI floor joist cavity between basement and finish floor insulated for sound; • Kitchen cabinet allowance; • Kitchen appliances (stove, refrigerator); and • Mechanical and electrical system as required Existing Main Level • Remodeling of existing building as required Exterior Appearance Changes • Replace roof covering east entrance porch and make structural improvements to the same by constructing a gabled roof, remove side panels of porch and replace with handrails flush with east exterior wall; • Add new southeast entrance door at ground level for ADA purposes; • Install handrails to existing structure at East Entrance; • Installation of stepped planters; • Landscaping with dwarf trees; • Installation of handicap drop-off at south entrance; • Connect existing structure to new structure with 18 entryway; and • Provide handicap parking spaces at west portion of lot s k: tP� �ta«ss�„ydY�' �t r �}lIyt(Y k• � y Iowa (,,it\- Historic Preservation Commission City I Tall, 410 1 . 1V1.1thIggtoii Strcct, IO%va City. IA. 52240 MEMORANDUM Date: April 2, 2008 To: City Council of Iowa City From: Historic Preservation Commission of Iowa City Re: Melrose Neighborhood Protection On February 28, 2008, the Melrose Neighborhood Association presented to the Historic Preservation Commission a document titled "Reasons Why the Melrose Neighborhood Should be Preserved." The attachments include letters of support from the Neighborhood Council and Friends of Historic Preservation. The neighborhood requested the support of the Historic Preservation Commission in their efforts to preserve the Melrose Neighborhood. As discussed in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, the Melrose Historic District encompasses varied architectural styles dating from the late 19th century through the post World War II period. Iowa City's oldest neighborhood west of the Iowa River, the Melrose Neighborhood housed the doctors, teachers, and coaches who sought residence near their work north of Melrose Avenue. The Historic Preservation Plan delineates ten objectives for this neighborhood including engagement of the University in discussion about the historic resources and future planning in the Melrose Historic District. Goal 7 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan details many objectives important to University related historic preservation, several of which relate directly to the Melrose Neighborhood. The first objective calls for open communication between the State Historical Society, the University of Iowa, and the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. Objective 7 asks for participation in a forum discussing University neighborhood issues related to historic preservation and for the Historic Preservation Commission to monitor activities of the University with historic preservation interests and offer input. Objective 7 also encourages the University of Iowa to establish a policy that supports historic preservation efforts in adjacent residential neighborhoods and that future expansion into the residential areas be undertaken in a manner that avoids negative impacts on historic resources and districts. Although the City is not able to implement historic preservation zoning controls on University owned property, we believe it is important to inform the University of the City's policies and goals for historic sites and neighborhoods. Towards this goal the Historic Preservation Commission's draft work program for 2008 includes a proposal to meet with the Campus Planning Committee to discuss the Historic Preservation Plan and the goals for the preservation of the University's historic structures. This will be an opportunity for the City to emphasize the historic importance of the Melrose Neighborhood and seek ways to cooperatively work for its preservation. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, William Downing, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Alicia Trimble, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Brennan, Jim Ponto STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Carl Hirschman, Cecile Kuenzli, Martin Wenck CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Burford notified the Commission that work done on the old law school has been halted because of failure to review the project under Section 106. She stated that Richard Carlson has been called in to work on this. Burford said that Friends of Historic Preservation would not have stepped in to salvage parts of the building if it had known that this had not been reviewed. Burford stated that an opinion page editorial in today's Press -Citizen raised points that she hoped could be addressed during the discussion of the Work Plan. She said the article discussed moving the Wetherby House. Burford said the author also addressed the needs of the community with regard to historic preservation and specifically addressed some items to the Historic Preservation Commission. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 430 Oakland Avenue. Miklo stated that this property is in the Longfellow Historic District and showed an aerial photograph of the area. He said the proposal contains two major aspects: the construction of a two - car garage with an accessory apartment above, and an addition to the east side of the house to accommodate the expansion of the kitchen and a new bathroom on the third floor. Miklo said that staff has had several discussions with the applicant about how to accomplish an addition to this property, and there are several things that need to be taken into account in addition to historic preservation. He said there are some zoning requirements, one of which is that any garage has to be at least 25 feet from the property line. Miklo said they looked at the possibility of a driveway back to Oakland, but both staff and the applicant felt it was not desirable to have the garage doors on the primary fagade on Oakland and determined the best location for the garage was to have it oriented with the garage doors facing Grant Court. He said that it would also result in the front yard not being paved to the extent that it would be if the garage faced west. Miklo said there is also a five-foot setback on the east side for the side lot line. He said the garage could be moved a little further to the east; however, there is a large pine tree on the neighboring property, and the design is planned to minimize as much root damage as possible. Miklo said that in the fall, the Commission discussed the possibility of enclosing the north porch to allow more living space, but the Commission was unenthusiastic about that plan. He said that alternatives were looked at, and the plan is now to extend the footprint of the building on the east side slightly to allow for additional interior space. Miklo said the existing view from Oakland really would not change. He said that the garage would be seen from Oakland. Miklo said that given the complex gambrel roof of the house, it was difficult to find an addition that would be respectful of the roof. He said this is the most reasonable approach presented the applicant's designers. Miklo said that it does have the gambrel shape, but because of the dormer on that side, the applicant was not able to do the full gambrel down to the side. Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 2 Miklo said that there are also a couple of minor aspects to the plan. He stated that one of them would be the replacement of some windows on the side of the house with clear -story windows. Miklo said another issue would be the plan to make the third floor window larger to allow egress. He said it would then be similar in size to the windows on the second floor. Miklo said it was not possible to do that on the less prominent north side, because of the stairway there. Regarding the garage, Miklo said that ideally the stairway to the second floor should be in the interior of the structure, but that would require an expanded footprint. He said that to avoid root damage to the pine tree, the applicant is proposing an exterior stairwell that would not require a full foundation. Miklo said that since this is a secondary elevation of the building, staff feels this is a reasonable design solution. He said the stairwell would be screened with a lattice work design. Regarding the view from the south, Miklo said the applicant proposes to mimic the gambrel roof style of the house itself. He added that carriage doors on the garage would help this appear to be of a similar period as the original house. Miklo said that if this is approved, the details of the doors still need to be worked out. Miklo said there are two alternative window patterns for the garage itself. He said that one would be a single sash window similar to the north side of the house, and the other would be a double hung. Miklo said the concern with the double hung, is that in order to get a window of the appropriate size, the window would have to extend into the frieze board. Miklo said that some of the neighbors have expressed concern about this application, including one neighbor who expressed concern about the potential loss of the yard. He said, however, that from a zoning point of view, the proposed garage meets all the requirements of the zoning code. Miklo said that if this open space was historically significant for some reason, such as a garden that is well known, there could be an argument made against building in this space. He said, however, there is no historic significance to this yard any more than any other yard in the neighborhood. Miklo said the question then becomes the design of the structure. He said it could be argued that a simple garage without the apartment would be lower in profile and less intrusive to the space; however, a simpler design without the gambrel roof would not mimic the house as well. Miklo said staff recommends approval of this, with a few details to be worked out in terms of window specifications and the garage doors. Weitzel asked if the garage would be attached to the basement. Miklo said that it would be freestanding from the house, as recommended by the guidelines. Weitzel said that the guidelines don't really describe what scale and mass are in terms of subordinate structures. He said he did not know if the footprint being almost equivalent between the garage and the house makes it the same as the house or if it is still smaller because it's shorter. Miklo said that there is a change in grade, which helps in this situation. He said that even though this is a story and a half building, because it is lower in grade, it's not looming compared to the house. Toomey asked about an item shown on the plan. Miklo said that it is the existing garage in the basement. Wenck, the consultant for the project, said that the dimensions of the existing basement garage door are about eight feet by seven feet, and it is not big enough to hold a modern car. Eubanks said the application refers to the possibility of enclosing the porch. Hirschman said that with the changes, in order to put a bathroom on the first floor, that is where if he can use the clear -story windows then he could put a bathroom in that area. He said that if that is not possible, he would still like to find a place to put it on the first floor, and the only free floor space would be that porch. Hirschman said that using the clear -story windows would be a compromise situation. Hirschman said that he went around and spoke to all the neighbors who were home on Oakland and showed them the blueprints. He said that all of them who had time to look at the blueprints did approve of them. Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 3 Weitzel noted that Caroline Colvin was a signatory on a letter to the Commission, but she has now recanted, because she did not know about the apartment over the garage when she signed. Swaim said she thinks it is laudable that the applicant went back to the drawing board to revise the plans for this and said it was the right thing to do. Eubanks said that she likes the porch, and she would not want to see it enclosed. Hirschman said that if the clear -story windows are allowed, he would be able to keep the porch. Weitzel said the Commission would prefer not to change the fenestration whenever possible, and the porch is one of the historic features of the building. Kuenzli said that she has lived in this neighborhood since 1972. She said she has walked past this house since then and has admired the way it sits on the lot and its proportions and realized that it was not being taken care of. Kuenzli said she hoped someone would buy it who would be a good steward of the house, appreciate it for what it is, and preserve it for the future. Kuenzli said that the most beautiful part of the house, besides the way it sits on the lot, is the south fagade and the sunroom and the screened porch behind it. She said that the proposed plan would almost completely obscure what is truly an elegant south fagade. Kuenzli said she agrees that this house needs a garage badly but asked why it needs a two-story garage with an apartment that would cover up the most beautiful part of the house. She asked if it would be possible to do a more diminutive garage without an apartment in it. Wenck said that no one will ever really look straight on the south elevation. He said that as one walks by the house from the west, one would still be able to see most of the south fagade, although probably not that back screened porch. Kuenzli said that the clear -story windows would be a minimal change and easy to accord, but it is the south fagade that is of concern. Hirschman said he agreed with Kuenzli's comments, but because of the zoning, he has to put the garage as close to the house as possible or it would be too close to the street. Kuenzli asked if it wouldn't be less expensive to make the basement garage usable. Hirschman said that he has looked at the possibilities for a garage under the house, but none of them were feasible. He said that the present plan is the least invasive option. Wenck said that the basement garage is tiny and narrow and would not fit a car of today. He said it would be ideal to find some way to not build on the south, and that was part of the reason for bringing the garage down as far as he could get it. Kuenzli said that not having the second story on it would bring it down. Wenck said it would not bring it down much, because the garage needs a roof that mimics the house, unless one would put a 4:12 roof there. Weitzel said that there are flat -roofed garages in the neighborhood, and garages don't always match the house exactly. He said there are other ways to design a garage that would go with the house. Kuenzli asked if a very shallow hip roof could be done over the garage. Hirschman said that it would still cover that south porch. Regarding the porch, Weitzel said that the foundation doesn't really match the original house, so he believes it was added later. He said it may be a historic feature but is not necessarily original to the house. Weitzel said there is a gardenlike feature on a garage on Grant Street. He said it is a very small garage, but it has a pergola look to it. Weitzel said he did not know if one could incorporate a design like that into a modern garage, but it would match what is on the screened porch right now. Miklo said that even if one built a lower profile garage, and a one-story garage is possible, someone walking by would see the garage and would not see over it to see the screened porch behind. He said Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 4 that if there is going to be a garage on the site, the view is going to change; there is not any way around it. Miklo said it is a judgment call as to whether one wants to match the roof of the house or have more of a four -square type garage. Swaim and Eubanks said that they preferred the mimicking of the roofline. Weitzel said that the two major pieces of the proposal could be considered separately, since the Commission seems to be coming to some consensus on the garage. Eubanks said that one wants to have historic structures stay historic, but they need to be made functional for the present time. Weitzel said he does not see any way that the Commission can say that a garage cannot be allowed. Toomey said that this meets the guidelines, as the appearance of the house from the street is not changed. Weitzel said the Secretary of the Interior Standards call for a 360 degree view, although it doesn't mean things cannot be done. Michaud asked if there is any way to allow an interior stairway on the garage. Hirschman said that he would like to enclose the stairs so that they are hidden, but that may not be possible. He said that is why he plans to use a lattice screen if he is forced to build an exterior stairwell. Downing said he is a little conflicted, because nothing the applicant plans would violate any of the zoning requirements. He said he appreciates the effort to mimic the style of the house. Downing said he would be cautious about the impact on the sun porch. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a garage at 430 Oakland Avenue subject to: the windows being wood or metal -clad, solid wood, with the size and style of the new windows to match the historic windows; the original windows to be salvaged and reused whenever possible; the carriage house style garage doors must be compatible with the style of the property; cement board or wood siding and trim.to match the profile of the existing siding and trim; and with the window and garage door final design to be subject to staff approval. Toomey seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1. with Downing voting against. Eubanks said that she would like to see the addition approved subject to not changing the side porch and not allowing the windows in the back to be too intrusive. Miklo pointed out that if the Commission does not approve the change to the enclosed porch, it does not then force the Commission to approve enclosing the existing side porch. Weitzel said that a porch enclosure is disallowed in the guidelines. Swaim said that she doesn't mind the clear story windows, because there is the precedent of the window on the far right and because this side of the house isn't very visible at all. Downing asked if the back porch would then contain the first level bathroom. Hirschman confirmed this and said that the present bathroom would be incorporated into the kitchen. He said that the interior plans have not been finalized. Miklo said that the interior of a building is within the Commission's purview to the extent that interior plans affect the outside of the building. He said that the Commission can consider the interior floor plan when considering resulting changes to the exterior. Downing asked about the attic window. Weitzel said he had asked if that could be put in the addition instead. Downing stated that HIS will require a bedroom to have an egress window. Hirschman said that would be the south exposure. Weitzel said that it isn't horrible there, but he would rather see the window stay the same, because it matches the one on the north side. Wenck said that window would be the minimum size for a double hung window. He said that one of the reasons he changed that was to get better light quality in that room. Wenck said he would be changing the window to match the two below it. MOTION: Eubanks moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 430 Oakland Avenue, as proposed in the application. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1. with Weitzel voting against. Miklo asked if Commission members were concerned about the window pattern on the garage. Weitzel said that he liked the smaller one — that it looks more like a carriage house and doesn't get into the frieze Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 5 board. Wenck said that one window would be functional, but the other would not be functional on the inside. The consensus of the Commission was to approve the upper window design. Miklo asked the applicant if he intends to change the garage door on the original house. Hirschman said that he will replace it with whatever he uses on the south side with so that all of the garages match. Weitzel asked the applicant to consider, since this is a wet basement, treating the foundation to preserve the longevity of the house. Swaim said she appreciates the fact that the applicant took the initiative to get neighborhood input. Three property owners from the neighborhood attended the meeting. Two of the three spoke, and they both said they were thrilled that someone is going to fix up the property. DISCUSSION OF 2008 WORK PLAN: Miklo commented that the City Council unanimously approved the updated Preservation Plan last week. He stated that he drafted a work plan to present to the City Council based on discussion at the last meeting. Burford said that the Press Citizen opinion page article points out that moving Wetherby House is symbolic of what can be done on behalf of historic preservation in Iowa City. She said the author is also saying that it demonstrates how difficult discerning the events around historic preservation can be. Burford said the author is suggesting we find ways to move ahead and keep things going that will preclude demolition notices from showing up on buildings that are historic. Toomey said the author asks for a citywide survey and nomination for places to be noted as recognized as having some historical significance. Weitzel said that goal one does address that, but the Commission does need to decide its priorities for when it happens. Burford said that the Commission has surveyed the community, and what is architecturally significant has been identified. She said that the article is getting at identifying socially, anthropologically important criteria, which are extremely difficult to research and identify. Weitzel stated that some of the surveys that have been conducted are better with regard to Criteria B significance than others. He said that there also properties outside the current districts that the Commission might want to consider to be landmarks. Burford said that even if a building is not eligible to be on the National Register, there is a potential there for the same kind of response. Weitzel said that the Commission needs to do a systematic survey for National Register properties and work on getting them nominated. He said that it is part of the goals. Weitzel said that the Preservation Plan is not just for the Commission but is for the whole community to follow. He said that other organizations could pick up on some of the surveys by funding them and/or supporting them. Swaim asked if the issue is who is going to do the work. Weitzel said that is a big chunk of it. He said that in any case, a grant needs to be applied for in order to hire a consultant. Miklo agreed that to be successful at doing a survey, the Commission needs to hire a consultant, and in order to do that, grant funding is needed. He said the work plan includes applying for a grant to study of the economic impact of historic preservation on the local economy. Miklo questioned whether that should have as high of a priority as doing a survey of an area such as Manville Heights, Kirkwood Avenue, or the near south side. He said that an economic impact study is not going to be as concrete as surveying a specific area, and that can probably be assumed without a study, as there are lots of other communities that have done it. Miklo asked if the Commission wanted to add an item to the work plan to apply for a survey grant or bump number five on the proposal. Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 6 Eubanks said that if the Commission is more modest in its goals, they are more likely to be accomplished. She suggested bumping goal number five and replacing it with applying for a grant of a specific area. Weitzel said that the political climate currently is much more in favor of preservation, and he therefore feels that a survey should be substituted for goal number five regarding economic development. Miklo said that page 108 of the Preservation Plan contains a list of recommended surveys that are graded in terms of priority. He said that the near south side has a few historic buildings left but does not really have a constituency in terms of a neighborhood that is asking to be preserved. Miklo said that having that area designated a landmark may be an uphill battle. He said that in order to get a building landmarked when the property owner objects, the approval of six of seven City Council members is required. Miklo said that Manville Heights is listed as recommended for a high priority, and there is also the Oak Grove to Kirkland Avenue Area and the Lucas Farm Area. Swaim said that she would much prefer moving on to getting a grant for the Manville Heights Neighborhood, as residents of the neighborhood are very interested in this, and if designation is successful, that will attract a lot of residents to the cause of preservation. Swaim said she believes that designation of the south side would be much more contentious. Weitzel said that the State has already virtually said that it would not fund a survey of the near south side area. He said their idea is that there are other areas that have more potential for valuable resources. The consensus of the Commission was to replace goal five in the Work Plan with the goal of applying for funding to do a survey of the Manville Heights Area. The Commission approved the updated 2008 Work Plan by consensus. 7Rti,511013:11 li:u l[i73�,11 �i�' v1�riIM—miT:w[iZ0l9 Weitzel asked for comments on the draft letter he had prepared regarding the Melrose Neighborhood. Miklo said one concern he would have is that the Melrose Neighborhood residents would be making their case based on some of the politics and such, and that is their case to make. He suggested that the Commission focus more on the historic nature of the neighborhood and let the residents make the other arguments, which they have done well in their report. Baker said that paragraph three could be omitted in that case. Miklo said that would work, along with possibly a few specifics about the history of the neighborhood, giving the reasons the neighborhood is on the National Register. Eubanks agreed to make the changes to the letter, and Miklo said there is time to have the revised letter back on next month's agenda for Commission approval. Swaim pointed out that there are two grant deadlines coming up. Baker said that she would be willing to help on one of those. Miklo said that a draft for the combined near south side and Manville Heights grant application has already been prepared, and that draft could be adapted and revised to refer to just the Manville Heights Area. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MOTION: Weitzel nominated Eubanks to be Vice Chair of the Commission. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. MOTION: Toomey nominated Ponto to be Chair of the Commission. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Swaim thanked Weitzel for all of his work done on behalf of the Commission. Weitzel said that he would be working on the Board of Friends of Historic Preservation and has been appointed a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 28, 2008. Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2008 Page 7 Baker said that on page one, in the fourth paragraph under discussion of the work plan, in the first sentence, the word "revised" should be changed to "revise." Michaud said that on page two, in the seventh paragraph, first sentence, "more acceptable of green" should be changed to "more inclusive of green." The minutes, as amended, were approved by consensus. OTHER: Miklo asked if there would be any interest in changing the time of the monthly meeting to 5:30. The consensus of the Commission was to keep the meeting time at 6:00. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s/pcd/m i n s/h pc/2008/3-13-08. doc