HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-2008 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, November 13, 2008
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 p.m.
A. Call to Order
B. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
C. Certificate of Appropriateness:
1. 441 S. Governor St
D. Consideration of minutes for October 9, 2008 and November 3, 2008
E. Other
F. Adjournment
Staff Report
November 7, 2008
Historic Review for 441 S. Governor Street
District: Governor/Lucas Street Conservation District
Classification: Contributing
The applicants, Rick and Melinda Woodard, are requesting approval for an amendment to a previously
approved Certificate of Appropriateness for window replacement at 441 S. Governor Street, a contributing
property the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. The applicants are seeking approval use windows
of a different size than previously approved.
Apphcable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.7 Windows
Staff Comments
This modest two story Victorian house was built in c. 1900. At the May 8, 2008 meeting the HPC approved
the removal of wood siding and replacement with fiber cement board siding. Later, on August 28, the Chair
and Staff conducted an Intermediate Review and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
replacement of the windows with Quaker Classic Fit Double Hung metal clad wood windows of the same
dimensions as the existing windows. Both Certificates are attached, as well as the original application for
window replacement.
Staff observed that the approximately 6-inch mullion had been removed on the lower level windows and the
new windows only had a mullion of approximately 1 inch. After issuing a stop work order and realizing that
a building permit was not obtained, Staff spoke with the contractor about the issue. It was indicated that the
windows needed to become larger to meet egress requirements. According to building code, bedrooms that
have the windows replaced need at least one conforming emergency escape and rescue opening. These
requirements are illustrated in a brochure that is attached and include the minimums of 20" clear width and
24" clear height with an open -able clear area minimum of 5.7 square feet.
The owner then provided staff with the clear measurement of the existing second story double windows in
the bedrooms. These measurements are:
Bedroom 1: 301/4 x 27 = 5.67 sq ft
Bedroom 2: 30'/2 X 27/4 = 5.77 sq ft
Bedroom 3: 30 x 27 1/4 = 5.68 sq ft
The clear open -able areas of the new windows that have been installed on the lower floor are:
29 x 29 1/4 = 5.89 sq ft
The guidelines state that when replacing a bedroom window, if required for egress by the Building Code, the
new window must match the size, trim, use of divided -lights, and overall appearance of the previous bedroom
window or other windows on the house. In addition, the guidelines state that when replacing windows the
new windows shall match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the
historic windows.
The applicant has provided photographs of the windows with screens with frames painted to match the
window trim rather than black framed screens. The intent is to create the appearance of the wide mullion
with the screen frames, rather than having a true mullion.
In Staffs opinion, there are a few options to meet egress
Make a single window slightly larger in order to meet the egress requirements; this preserves
the 6-inch mullion in the double window locations. However, in one bedroom the only
windows are a set of double windows. In this case, the double windows could get larger to
meet egress. A mullion should be maintained that is as large as possible and still meet egress
requirements. (open area of 29 x 28 3/8 = 5.7 sq ft and leaves a 1.75 inch wider mullion
than a 29 x 291/4open area that is proposed) All other double windows keep the existing
width of mullion, especially in rooms that are not bedrooms.
Using a casement window that is the same size as the existing windows in order to meet the
egress requirement. This is not a preferred option, as a casement would appear much
different from a double hung, especially when located directly adjacent to one. However,
this option has been approved in the past as a viable option to meet the building code
requirement and maintain the window pattern.
Using a different brand of window that can be produced to fit the existing window
dimensions and the egress requirements. In staff's opinion, this is probably not a good
option, as windows have already been ordered and many have already been installed. If a
new window is selected just for the double windows, it will be difficult to match the new
windows already installed.
Staff believes that eliminating the mullion between the windows alters the historic fabric of the house. Very
rarely is there a mullion of only 1 inch on historic or even newer houses. Staff is concerned with the sort of
precedent that may be set if the elimination of the 6 inch mullion is allowed. Staff recommends for the
applicant to explore other options to meet egress that do not eliminate the mullion. Staff also recommends
that if a mullion must be decreased to meet egress it shall only be for the bedroom windows and not for any
other rooms in the house.
Recommended Motion
Move to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the window replacement at 441 S. Governor Street that
eliminates the mullion between the double windows.
Alternative Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the window replacement at 441 S. Governor Street,
with the following conditions:
• The mullions in the double windows being maintained;
• Single windows being enlarged to meet the egress requirement where feasible instead of double
windows being enlarged;
• Any window that is not in a bedroom must maintain the dimensions of the original window; and
• Staff approval of the locations and dimensions of the egress windows.
Historic Preservation Commission
�.11� flat], M) 1':A\ 1slhine10n Sir"t, I,)wa (;its. t V'32210
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
441 S. Governor Street
On August 28, 2008, the Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission and Staff conducted an Intermediate
Review and approved an alteration project at 441 S. Governor St, a contributing property in the Governor -
Lucas Street Conservation District.
The project includes the removal and replacement of 15 first and second story windows. (The picture
window, attic windows, and basement windows will not be replaced) The windows will be replaced with
Quaker Classic Fit Double Hung metal clad wood windows of the same dimension as the existing windows.
The sashes will be black and the frame will match the color of the house trim.
The project is approved subject to the conditions specified in this certificate, notations in the application, and
the discussion by the Commission as provided in City Code Section 14-8E-2. All work is to meet the
specifications of the guidelines unless otherwise noted. Any additional work that falls under the purview of
the Historic Preservation Commission that is not specified in this certificate will need a separate review.
Lin say Bunting banks, Chair
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner
Iowa City Planning & Community Development
Date
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 p�_ 2-
of
the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Date submitted ...........4., ...................�...........
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. 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)
OV-4
u
Wo�aa
Owner............................................................... .....
(�....... �.`�...1r� � ......�.....�...... ............I ...............
ddress .....I.I... ... ,N11.�441.K.f.'..... .....I ....................
QwQ.... ,..I�4. ....^ w.......zip..2!Q
email..11.Y Q I.... 1...,4�..'M 54 lDWV
e.............. l
Contractor SS (l IfJI." `� LI.�' ...... dy/
Adgress� pV'.•... 4..2J.er.........................................................
Phone!.^..!..W.IIof�...VL.I��.�.....0....L)
email..r...K.ar...len.......n... t in. .... .................
Consultant.................................................................................
Address..........................................................................................
.................................................................................zip ........ I ..... I....
Phone..............................................................................................
email................................................................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
Site plan
Floor plans
Building elevations
Photographs
Product inform do
tiPl'I...............................................
P
<
Other.S
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.
❑ Major review
Intermediate review
❑ Minor review
Property Information
dress of r erty.. l..... �Q.v.Y.l"' '0.
i
Use of property... ✓�I�i...�q �..I........................
Date constructed (if known) .....101.1...... ......... I..........................
Historic Designation
0 This property is a local historic landmark
OR
0 This property is located in the:
Brown Street Historic District
College Green Historic District
East College Street Historic District
Q Longfellow Historic District
El Summit Street Historic District
Woodlawn Historic District
Clark Street Conservation District
Q College Hill Conservation District
Dearborn Street Conservation District
Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
Contributing
Noncontributing
Q 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
0 Other. .............................................................................................
P oject description .
ddoi?ra.... .. . .. ne .w ...WA....dowe- .6
.....
yi. ........"dp .. ......... ... womid h4a .comf
.... IT4 ..... ftk .... ..... WORM ... h..
..... ... . .. . ......
--f ..
Ot ........ ............ .........
.. AA.WWA
. ........ w ....4
ow
... .. .... .. . . ..... �5. ho ...
Ta�4bac
.... ........ .. . . .....
.. .... .. ......... .. .... ..... .....
.... SOU".)
..Vv
MAIM ... m�
Cfv
Materials tkbe ed
ks ...n %
... OROW -.....W C .w od ... vo.. do w .. ... .............. I . ...... C. w .......... -Ow....
Ir
x....... . ...... .. .... ....... ......
h1�... ......... ...... ...... ......... ... . .�................
ij7i,{..frftit{ �p�4..1Mll.�G.....
. A4e-z............" .�j ....... a .. I .....4 ....
.... ............ . ............... .......... ..................................
. . .......
................... ........................................................................................................................................... I ........... I .................. I .........................................
Ex ,$erior appearagce cAha"ges
... C.C. ........ .......
f .... ... ............
Vt
"'. eA C . ............................................................................................................
Of
............. ........ A.1.1 ...... vo
3
-DC eeo-^ +0 OA-014-ld 9-1
Tri Ol '� Si:�IS �t,ti•ev•
Ori tems. � 400 %14 w4..- eta 4aS
D--O
_
v
II'
03
Fri
t
f;
ti��� Q /
•k b
p
4J
Q 3
70
0
w
0
W
po
H
C
A
L
c�
a
N cM
00
L
E
Uto
L -0
(1)
�LO
M
� (�
, L
p)
o r-
W
L
� /'\ I��
VJ
�
V
a
U
ry
w
E
00 �
A
t
#M
It
.UStC)I1 Size
1
.h
WoodReplacementWindow
Who ever said that woodwindows
custom-siaed wood replacement
can't be replaced? Well, they can, and
window from Quaker Window.
i
it's made easy; with the Fit", i
Quaker successfully, created
�—'
the G'r ,s. F it "` window by ��
r
blending '
unaginati 'kl
in
r
dIVCMe d eslgn With an absblutc
demand for energy -efficiency.
�r
The result is thefinest'wood
replacement window d'n tier;.
rA
market today.
.'
�
� �; u r
a • �
'�/. aF ,� �
✓ ,r T rt' WIRt OwS Once
�q Fit"
The l i� t combines the
a b
�tie,,un prove Qualters resolute
warm, natur�il feel of wood, with the
connnitinent to quality. The
quality materials dVflllt3hlC.
FiI window is built by
,.highest
� d�"hc ulterior is made up of high-
skilled e�r<dismen, dedicated to
quality pine.
,. ....
Hick, craft,;ITlta devoted to
The window's exterior, Clad with
prooding windows that are
extruded aluminum, is firm and
ih
unINIralleled In the inrlastly.
unyielding to even the harshest
Quaker Fit" windows are
manufactured to width & height on the
atnplcs: 27 1/2" or 52 3/4"
'Measure between jambs at thre,
points: top, middle, & bottom. Use the
smallest measurement. See drawing
I MIGHT Measure between outside sill.
(where it meets the stool) and witch w
t.,
head on left, middle, ind,rii;l<,sides.
Use the smallest iticastirctncru-
sec. drawing; ,C2) "
OVERALL DEPTI 1: 4-5/8"
POCKET DEPTH: 3-1 /4"
IMPORTANT. K- fFi t " JAI, JAbIB
windows are atstom ianadc fo", MEASURE WIDTH'
FRC:)M THESE TWO L
each home. Make. Sure POINTS
c UaIIYttteS and sizes are correct. INSWE TRIM
w
MEASURE
INSIDEHEI( HT
M FROM
TRI
THESE
TWO?
POINTS
,,�- Toni
As a complete, sealed and wood interior cat be stained or
airtight window, your new painted t6 match your existing A,!
A.
Fit`" wood replacement window is Yi�ut window installer can get ^p
ready to be installed the moment
complete installation it
You receive it. No kits to .. �
your local Quaker wirit
assemble iio pieces to lease
a�
Fit" windriws are
custom-sizt:rf°i7°y 1/4" increments,
so yotrean expect a secure,
`
o6ergy-efficient fit.
Installing the Fit
window is easy.. Simply insert i
into Your existing ftamc opening
,
or a quick and smooth
nstatlation. The installations
rocedure will be so simple, it can
e completed without destroying
•,
•• c
i
he opening and without taking
`off sheetrock or exterior prick.
Once installed, the r'..L.,,FFit's
From top to bottom, the 6�,,i Fit"
wood replacement window is loaded with
quality features.
Tilt -Larches (below) are a recent and
dramatic improvement for wood
'` 1 q{j{( � windows. The
4.
o 1 lightest touch
° �1 allows both
/i
n sash > o tdt.,y
effofitk ss y As
i`
i result,
cleaning
bccomcsx" 'Me y simple.
•h�riided nluminun> clad exterior is far
superior to roll -form cladding. It's
maintenance -free Anil available in 5
it
standard and 5 optional colors. Phis,
Quaker offers custom color capability.
•.. Solid pine wooed frarne.s are specially
treated to provide long-terin durability.
4
• Block & tackle balance system adjusts Standarcl Optional
with the size of the window. Colors Colors
• Dual pane 3/4" insulated"glass includes
the patented DuraScal- itisulant, a
unique, warm -edge spacer that is heat
set m an oven ro forul an airtight,
energy -efficient seal.
• Screen is solidly built, with an . 4
extruded al,utninum frame and, q
fiberglass
mesh. h
ai�b �wi N E111,
N6 Nt4i�'b �W G
• ,old finish a'�
cuff 111,,sistie d
1eP
shuts tighttN
F
�
eY ('ry times
6{
loc knit; out
the elemcnts.
Lucks also lie flusli with
the wood iind
clon't impede.. your
viewing area.
F-g,
ll
idmetimcs, your windows aren't the only things that need replacing. Quaker has three styles of'wood el ad patio do
winging series and 1 sliding model.. All three offer their own unique expression Match your color scheme, glass, an``
rille appearances as you complete your home's new looks"
F(..: `
i
iYl .,A,
�' TIC. � •�� � � �� � o
Grande u Pro P4' es; ; d
Palisade Series -
Swinging patio door with �.vIrr, ��� winging patio d� �q, Dur-able sliding pi itio door that
and
i y Y» a 5�,.• i",,w� ,.�d�i��p �i
it French botTurauc offersiu h ertennaance 6oj looks.
g Y nd. A
h with squ 2, ��t 3 panels, as well a true ( �n p ��� �t;�,agood Idols.
hi } hest appearance
tfcarsnc�u homelr Available
3r, lien confi h doors t� erg .
French (both doers operable) yet -up.
t
Open up your room by
bringing the outside in with
Quaker's bay and bow
r Custom sizing combined
with unlimited configurations
gnd styles make Quaker bays
as you give your' t"
renewed look.
All bay & bo
pre -assembled. Available
options include 30°or 459
bays, 13" bows, and'„i,ri�tifate _-
head and seat b&r:ds with
tt teak or birch finishes.
is proud to he `The energy perftirtrtaiw,
ENERGY STAR'" etch Fit" window is
rtner. C?fdj,�,Fit"' displayed on the NFRC labcl.
e ENERGY STAR" The NFRC (National
qualified, complying with the Fenestration R stings Count ,
tringent energy -efficient guide Sticker allows you to ICu-
lines established by the govern- rarely compare the efficiency
ment-backed ENERGY STAR" of similar windows.
A.
prograin
inside with
WINOpyya
on the
outside!
4r:
..4.
Time.
R-Vilue - 2.94 ooth Low-fr
wt�eo.: 1_J-V ibic - 034 (with Low-E & argon pas)
Air Infiltration - 0.04
ENERGY STAR` qu ililied
`trst ,n()rmmion cmucnr Is t;t I/07
Product is mihjuct to periodic re testing, thus
Information may vaty slightly.
Quaker Window Products
generation owners Quakcr yMI
Company, afamily-own6d corpo-
, preserves our founders valuess `y
sa
ration, was founded in 1949 by
weaving a tradition,of excellence
Marge & Harold "Bud" Knoll.
with a passion for continual
The Knolls imtneOiafely estab-
improvement
hiloso .h that`
lisped a bu � p p y.
Yo,u'°5cc� uaker doesn't just
Q
y rosiness
the Pfeil"' Quid stand the test of
,.
tii<3nuft ure windows and doors.
irne. It has. That philosophy
We"' ,in the business of creating
includes dedication 'to detailed
them so that they go beyond the j
workmanship, responsive service,
essentials of light and ventila-
an�d pricing to fit any budget.
Lion. Our ultimate goal is to
Nciw managers by second-
achieve a product for your home
that uniquely blends beauty,
pleasure, and protection.
It's easy tcrsee why our
Page 1 of 3
Christina Kuecker
From: Mohr, Paula [DCA] [Paula.Mohr@iowa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:26 PM
To: Undisclosed recipients
Subject: Historic Preservation and Disaster Recovery Efforts Workshop; Cedar Rapids; November 15
Here is a great training opportunity for CLGs and other Iowa preservationists. If you are a
CLG, attendance at this workshop will could towards your annual training requirement.
Hope to see you there!
Historic Preservation and Disaster Recovery Efforts Workshop
Sponsored by the Cedar Rapids Historic Preservation Commission
Fellowship Hall
St Paul's United Methodist Church
1340 3rd Avenue SE
Cedar Rapids
November 15, 2008
Workshop Agenda
8:30 AM Registration
9:00 AM The Iowa Site Inventory and Preparing Iowa Site Inventory Forms
Presenter: Barbara Mitchell, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
10:00 am Break
10:15 am Tax Credits for Historic Properties
Presenter: Elizabeth Foster Hill, Tax Incentive Programs Manager, SHPO
12:00 noon Lunch on your own
There are many restaurants located nearby
1:30 pm Local Project Review: Roles and Responsibilities in the Section 106 Review Process
Presenter: Douglas W. Jones, Review and Compliance Program Manager, SHPO
2:30 pm National Floodplain Insurance Program
Presenter: Roger Benson, Natural Hazards Program Specialist, FEMA Region VII
3:15 pm Break
3:30 pm Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Properties
11/5/2008
Page 2 of 3
Presenter: Jack Porter, Preservation Consultant, SHPO
4:30 pm Workshop closes
In addition to the scheduled presentations, staff from the State Historic Preservation Office and Roger
Benson from FEMA Region VII will be available to answer questions throughout the day. Individual
consultations will take place in the Library of St. Paul's United Methodist Church beginning at noon.
11 /5/2008
Page 3 of 3
Ash
St. Paul's United Methodist Church
1340 3rd Street SE
Cedar Rapids
------------------------------------------
Paula A. Mohr, Ph.D.
State Historic Preservation Office
State Historical Society of Iowa
600 East Locust Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0290
(515) 281-6826 (phone)
(515) 282-0502 (fax)
paula...mohr@iowa.gov
Check out the new website for the "Hollywood in the Heartland" project!
htV.J/hollywood.iowapreservation.org
11/5/2008
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSON
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2008
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
Preliminary
MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Ginalie
Swaim, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Baldridge, Jim Ponto, Viktor Tichy
STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker
OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC FORUM:
Bunting Eubanks said that there is a virtual forum update in the Commission's packet. She said that perhaps the
Commission would want to have a 30-minute forum instead of an hour. Bunting Eubanks suggested the Commission
discuss what it wants to cover and then get help from Kuecker in building those segments.
Bunting Eubanks suggested a piece on the Salvage Barn or a segment on typical things that need to meet guidelines,
such as windows and siding, or a segment on introducing new guidelines. She suggested the Commission come up
with a list of items and then narrow it down to perhaps five segments with five minutes for each item on the list and
then perhaps five or ten minutes for questions and answers.
Kuecker said there was some concern about people not calling in with questions and having some dead space. She
said the idea was to have people submit questions beforehand and also have a live call -in segment at the same time.
Bunting Eubanks said that if there are more questions phoned in, the forum could stay available to answer questions
without being on the air.
Trimble suggested that one of the biggest issues with things being done correctly concerns windows. Swaim said
that another issue is the need to apply for a permit in the first place. Kuecker said the Commission wanted to include
a combination of naming things that must be done along with showing the best way to do them. She said that home
improvement tips will hold people's interest.
Swaim asked if there is any example of the process showing changes that a homeowner has made that would make a
very compelling case visually. Bunting Eubanks said the Commission had talked about using a historic preservation
award winner with before and after photographs. She said that might be a good thing to be done at the beginning,
with Commission members introducing themselves and talking about historic preservation successes in the City.
Downing suggested having a segment of the boundaries of current districts. Bunting Eubanks said Friends of
Historic Preservation could do a piece on its organization. Bunting Eubanks asked if Burford would be willing to
come and introduce herself and the organization on camera.
Kuecker said it would be most effective if Commission members help develop the segments. She said she is
available to help and do a lot of the work, but it won't be as effective if she does all the work versus the public
hearing the voices of people who live in the community and are on the commission.
Wagner asked, assuming there is a segment on how to restore something, if there could be a crew to come out and
film the process. Kuecker said it would be possible to have something pre-recorded.
Swaim asked if the Wetherby exterior is complete. She said that would be a good example that could be filmed.
Burford said there was a series of videos done by the Mount Vernon Historic Preservation Commission. She said
that once a year a specialist was brought in to do some kind of seminar, and they were videotaped over the years to
produce a library of preservation techniques. Swaim said that could give the Commission some topic ideas, but
Historic Preservation Commission
October 9, 2008
Page 2
noted that the examples shown should be local. Bunting Eubanks said that any in the field segment would be the first
thing to accomplish. Kuecker said she would contact the people working on the Wetherby House. Bunting Eubanks
said that the Wetherby House presents an interesting case that a lot of people have heard about.
Swaim said she likes the idea of having segments on a couple of different things, including different styles and ages
of houses. She said there will be a lot of opportunities for the Wetherby House to continue to be a storyteller. Swaim
said that if the Commission is trying to build an audience, a small old cottage may not appeal to someone with a
1920s house.
Bunting Eubanks suggested that segments could be done on both. She said there could be a segment on the
Wetherby house, a segment on typical housing styles in the area, a segment on the guidelines, a segment on the area
boundaries, a meet the Commission segment, and possibly questions for five to ten minutes. Bunting Eubanks said
she wanted it to be organized, and that more than five minutes on any one thing might lose the audience's interest.
Michaud said that in the beginning the Commission will want to have something visual that people can relate to. She
said it could be three examples of architecture or maps of neighborhoods. Michaud said that then it could move into
when a building permit must be applied for and then move on to guidelines or a before and after segment of
common repairs. She said there is a lot of material to be drawn from. Michaud said there could also be a reference
for getting information from Friends or the Salvage Barn.
Swaim said that, in terms of the guidelines, that could easily be boring. She suggested comments on what the basic
goals of the guidelines are and then information on how to access them. Kuecker suggested referencing the
guidelines on windows and then giving a tip on windows. She said the how-to should keep people's attention, and
then there could be a reference to the guidelines in between.
Michaud suggested the segments encompass the need for a permit; implications of a certificate of appropriateness;
the guidelines, specifically for windows and rooflines; the fact that there are many more points; and the fact that
help with the process is available. Bunting Eubanks said she likes the idea that the guidelines for windows can be
read and then an example can be shown so that the forum can focus on the guidelines that people have the most
problems with.
Kuecker said the issue of interior gutters has come up frequently and would be a good item to discuss. Michaud
added that with regard to windows, it could be pointed out that it is good not to just use plain sash, with comments
about muntin bars and design. Bunting Eubanks said there are a lot of examples in Iowa City to use. Regarding
guidelines, she said the forum could cover windows, siding, built-in gutters, and how the guidelines differ from the
Building Code.
Swaim suggested the forum also include some information on porches. She said that it is a very simple concept to
convey, in terms of scale and style, but she said it makes a big difference on the house. Kuecker agreed that
discussion and examples of windows, siding, built-in gutters, and porches would probably cover most of the
applications the Commission receives.
Bunting Eubanks said she liked Michaud's proposed order starting with inspirational photographs and then maps.
Swaim said this would point out how some changes improve and increase value for the whole community. Kuecker
said it will be important to keep the comments positive. Bunting Eubanks said there could be a link to the segments
of the forum on the website.
Kuecker said it might work to discuss gutters and roofs together. She said it could be pointed out that if a
homeowner goes below the shingles, a permit is needed.
Bunting Eubanks asked if there was enough information to cover without mentioning the Wetherby House. Swaim
replied that some of the points the Commission really wants to get across clearly might work well as bulleted points.
Bunting Eubanks said that it could be very simple. Swaim said that the Wetherby House could be discussed at a
future forum. Bunting Eubanks said that separate segments could be redone as needed over time, particularly the
question and answer session.
Historic Preservation Commission
October 9, 2008
Page 3
Bunting Eubanks stated that notification could be sent to area realtors. She suggested that the sessions be pieced
together, but the question and answer session would need to be live so that people could call in. Bunting Eubanks
said there would be the bullet points, the video, and then the live question and answer session at the end.
Michaud said there would need to be diagrams, particularly of something like built-in gutters and perhaps divided
light windows as well. Kuecker replied that staff is attempting to create illustrations as the guidelines are being
rewritten, so those illustrations would hopefully be done and available before the forum.
Bunting Eubanks suggested that there be a test run of the forum, perhaps at the Commission's January meeting. She
said that if all runs smoothly, the forum could be done in February. Bunting Eubanks agreed to help Kuecker with
the PowerPoint presentation. She said that if the Commission wants to do something onsite, such as the Wetherby
House, that will need to be done before the weather turns. Bunting Eubanks suggested something on the Wetherby
House be done now, and it could be used as filler if there isn't enough information for the entire forum.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2008.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Commission's September 11, 2008 meeting, as written.
Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
SELECTION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD WINNERS:
Kuecker stated that originally the Commission had felt that the award winners could be selected by staff and the
chair, but since then it was decided that it would be better to have the entire Commission participate. Kuecker said
that she had narrowed down the nominations to about 45 properties. She said that when she looked at the properties,
compared them to the guidelines, and determined when the projects were completed, she then was able to decrease
the number of properties to 30.
Kuecker said that it is okay if all of the 30 receive an award. She said there is no obligation to determine that one
paint job is better than another. Kuecker said she just wanted to introduce all of the nominated properties to the
Commission for input but did not feel the Commission would need to spend a great deal of time on any one
property.
The Commission discussed properties nominated for the historic preservation awards and selected the winners by
consensus.
Kuecker said she would be sending a letter to all of the owners to get information, including more before pictures
and to find out who did the work. She stated that the awards ceremony would be held on November 10t'.
Kuecker stated that the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission wanted to recognize a couple of
properties. She said the issues are whether they meet the standards and if it is something the Commission wants to
endorse. Kuecker pointed out that the awards ceremony is sponsored by Friends of Historic Preservation and the
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission.
Kuecker said that one property had a restoration and addition. She said that owners of both of the County properties
wanted to recognize the use of recycled materials. Kuecker showed before and after photographs of the first
property. She said there has been an addition to the rear of the property and some dormer additions.
Kuecker said she feels strongly that the other property does not deserve a historic preservation award, but it may, if
the Commission wants to recognize the use of recycled materials, receive some type of award. Burford said that the
owners of this property really wanted to use recycled materials, and the contractor was very adept at using the
materials that had been collected.
Kuecker showed before and after photographs of a stable in Solon that was restored. Downing said he has seen this
property, and it is a striking restoration. Kuecker said there is some interest in making the building an art gallery.
Bunting Eubanks suggested the Commission, in order to keep a good relationship with the County, select one of the
three properties for an award. The consensus of the Commission was to select the third property for an award.
Historic Preservation Commission
October 9, 2008
Page 4
Bunting Eubanks said that a lot of the before and after pictures of the houses would go well with the forum in that
they show the progression of a project.
Burford said she thought it was good to recognize as many projects as possible because of the economy. She said
that money is so tight that next year there may be a real problem finding projects, but the awards encourage people
to do the work and spend time thinking about these things. Burford said the women who used the recycled materials
wanted to support a way for people who don't have money to consider repairs by putting sweat equity into the
material. Swaim said that the properties mentioned by Kuecker that reused materials — windows, siding, and
flooring, give an opportunity to mention recycling efforts.
Burford said there are many local examples of people using recycled materials for construction projects. She
suggested they be eligible for some type of commendation. Bunting Eubanks said the projects that used recycled
materials could receive some kind of green star. She said that when Kuecker contacts the owners, there could be a
question about whether or not they used recycled materials.
Burford said there were a few houses in Coralville for which no one responded, but they actually received some
funds from the state. She said that could be part of the presentation. Kuecker said the flooding could be mentioned,
but she didn't think too much time should be spent on that. She said it could be mentioned that the Ashton House is
a National Register property that is being restored with help from a grant by the State.
OTHER:
Summary of Statewide Historic Preservation Conference.
Kuecker stated that Bunting Eubanks has requested a short presentation about the Conference in Sioux City.
Kuecker stated that this was one of the most organized, best presented conferences she has ever attended. She said
that the quality of speakers and the venues at the conference were interesting. Kuecker said the architecture left in
downtown Sioux City is amazing, and one of the greatest buildings she has seen is in Sioux City. Kuecker
proceeded to describe the sessions she attended and her impressions of Sioux City.
Bunting Eubanks said that one of the Commission members, Tichy, has attended only one meeting since being
appointed in March. She said that she and Kuecker have each e-mailed him regarding his term on the Commission,
but neither has received a response. Swaim said future a -mails could state that if there is no response within a certain
time frame, there will be an assumption that he is willing to resign. Bunting Eubanks said there is a letter that needs
to be sent to the Mayor to remove him from the Commission, and she wanted to ensure that was acceptable to the
other Commission members. The consensus of the Commission was to send the letter to the Mayor.
Kuecker said she was made aware of a project that was not being completed as approved. She said the homeowners
would like to come before the Commission, possibly at a second October meeting, in order to get their windows
replaced for winter.
Bunting Eubanks asked if it would likely be approved by the Commission. Kuecker said she had informed the
homeowners that the project would probably not be approved.
Kuecker said the owners applied to replace the windows on a house in a conservation district. She said she and
Bunting Eubanks reviewed the application as an intermediate review. Kuecker said the owners have now not
installed the windows as they said they were going to. She said there were two windows beside each other with a
four -inch mullion in between. Kuecker said the owners have eliminated that mullion, and the windows now butt up
each other with about a one -inch mullion in between. She said that the house now looks significantly different, and
the rhythm of the windows has been altered quite a bit. Kuecker said the owners state that they need the windows
this way for egress, but it is not likely that there is a bedroom in every location and there is no need for multiple
egress windows in each bedroom.
Swaim said that if the windows are not likely to be approved, there isn't a reason to waste staff s, the Commission's,
or the homeowners' time. Bunting Eubanks agreed she would not want to give the owners false hope. Bunting
Eubanks said that if an applicant is not going to follow the certificate that has been issued to him, that is his own
Historic Preservation Commission
October 9, 2008
Page 5
fault. Michaud said she did not know what the recourse would be. Kuecker said the owners have the option of
putting in the windows as they were originally approved.
Kuecker said that the owners came through historic review but never got their building permit. She said that if the
homeowners would have received a building permit, they would have known which windows had to be egress
windows, and the Building Department would have had them come back to Kuecker and ask for what they wanted.
The consensus of the Commission was that this does not warrant a second October meeting. Kuecker said she would
notify the homeowners that they would be on the November agenda. She added that now the Building Department
will not issue a building permit until this issue is resolved with the Commission so that the owners cannot proceed
on any work for the time being.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
O
�N
N
.E
E
O
C
cc
O
N
L
a
,O
N
WE
w
o
�X
XXX�XO
Xx
XX
Oxxx�O
Xx
HO0
X
XX0x0Go
;
0x
IV
XX
i
;
XXXXx
w
1
1
Hi
!
i
o
N
XX
XXX
-
x
-
X
04
XX
;
wXXXwwxw
<o
O
00
0
;
f
XX
xx�X�-XX
i
LUx
xX�XxxXX
0
x0
;
OXXXoOXX
Uj
i
Mx�xxx�X
xX
x
o
i
XOXXXX0
w
w;
ww
;
X
N
1
00
;
U)
mw0-m0ol
rnornoo
rn
rn
m
rn
m
rn
m
rn
m
rn
m
rn
m
rn
m
rn
rn
rn
rnM
F� x
N
M
N
M
N
co
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
CV)
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
cM
N
Cl)
a
C
C
R
E
O
C
O
N
N
O
C
<0
t
O
r+
�,
o
f0
zmmmow�aN1Pr�33
m
!0
i
0
0
v
0
3
v
0
a
0
.d
N
!A
7
U
X
w
+. c
C C cn
CD
N N
a) Q
a Q II
II II w
YxoO
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2008
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks,
Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner,
MEMBERS ABSENT: none
STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker
OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Ann Hendrickson, David Lacina, Mark Smith, Sonja Zeithamel
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
524 North Johnson Street.
Kuecker said this application is to replace the standing seam metal roof on this building with a synthetic
wood shingle roof. She said the property is on the National Register and is also a local landmark. Kuecker
said that the building is the Czechoslovakian Protective Society's Meeting Hall and has been very
important to the history of the Goosetown Neighborhood and its Czech immigrants.
Kuecker stated that approximately ten years ago the applicant replaced the standing seam metal roof with
a new standing seam metal roof. She said the applicant has had problems ever since. Kuecker said that
approximately one to two years after the roof was installed it was leaking. She said the owners put a
protective coating on the roof, but another one to two years later it started leaking again. Kuecker said
that another protective coating was put on, but at the present time, a couple of years later, the roof is
leaking again. She said that the original contractor has gone out of business, and the new contractors that
have been contacted are not confident in another sort of sealant working.
Kuecker said the applicant has therefore looked at other solutions. She said that the owner said that
when the original metal roof was removed, there was a wood, shake shingle roof underneath it. Kuecker
said this and historic photographs have led the owner to consider using a synthetic wood shake style
shingle to replace the metal roof.
Kuecker said that she contacted Jack Porter of the State Historic Preservation Office and Marlys
Svendsen to get some historic preservationists' views on this. Kuecker said the consultants told her that
based on the two historic photographs, it is hard to tell that it was a wood shingle roof, but it is obvious
that it was not a standing seam metal roof. She said Porter stated that it was probably wood or possibly a
metal shingle roof, and he would recommend a wood, slate, or high quality asphalt shingle. Kuecker said
Svendsen noted that the previous standing seam metal roof had become a historic alteration that has
become a character -defining feature of the building, as it had been on the building, prior to its
replacement, for approximately 80 years.
Kuecker said at the time she spoke with Svendsen, she did not yet have the information about there
being a wood roof underneath. Kuecker said Svendsen stated that without knowing the previous material
choice, she would recommend the metal roof. Kuecker said the Commission needs to determine if the
standing seam metal roof is a historic alteration that is worth preserving or if it would be appropriate to
return it to the appearance of a wood shingled roof.
Kuecker showed some photographs of the interior damage. She said there is significant damage in the
auditorium, which is.a significant part of the history of the building. Kuecker pointed out that a decision
must be made so that work can be done before further damage occurs. She showed a photograph of a
Historic Preservation Commission
November 3, 2008
Page 2
house with the same roofing material that is proposed and a photograph of a National Register property
with the same type of roofing material.
Smith, representing Smith and Wood Construction, said that he was contacted to submit a proposal to
replace the roof. He said he had two products available, one of which is the synthetic material shown in
the photograph of the National Register property. Smith said that it is a simulated wood shake that is
basically a plastic property with a UV protection and a 50-year warranty. He said he has used the product
before.
Smith said he also submitted a proposal using a couple of different asphalt products. He showed the
presidential series that has a 50-year warranty and said it is used frequently in applications such as this.
Smith said it is the heaviest asphalt shingle that has a simulated wood look. He showed another asphalt
product that is the same quality and weight of shingle and is also used quite often in this type of
application. Smith said that one has more of a slate look and is the type of shingle that is on Saint
Wenceslaus Church and Saint Mary's Church.
Bunting Eubanks said the application refers to the flashing being of high quality to make sure there are
not future problems. Kuecker said that both Porter and Svendsen stated, and she agreed, that in order to
ensure a long-lasting roof, a high quality flashing material should be used. Kuecker said that oftentimes
the flashing is the component that fails first.
Smith commented that there is not a lot of flashing on this roof; there isn't any sidewall flash to speak of; it
is just a big hip roof. He said that at the base where the parapet roofs are, he proposed to use TPO, a
synthetic project used on commercial properties that is probably the best product for that application.
Baldridge asked about the cost variations of the products. Smith said the two asphalt products have the
same cost. Kuecker said the DaVinci shakes and the standing seam costs are in the packet but the
asphalt products are not. Smith said that the DaVinci shingles would be $83,480, and the asphalt shingles
would be $55,200.
Bunting Eubanks asked if the applicant has a preference about the material to be used. Hendrickson
replied that the Board of Trustees was running toward the DaVinci/shake look. She said that they did not
discuss the asphalt shingles. Hendrickson said the asphalt shingles have a 50-year guarantee, and it is a
good quality asphalt.
Zeithamel said that ten years ago when the standing seam roof was put on, it was installed incorrectly.
She said that was a huge expense for a non-profit organization. Zeithamel said they cannot do that
again, that they need to have the roof installed correctly.
Wagner said the presence of shingle roof could be found if one crawls into the crawl space, remnants of
the original roof will be found. He said the question then is not that originally it was a shingled roof.
Wagner said that as far as whether the roof is the DaVinci shingle or the asphalt it depends on what the
durability of the asphalt shingles versus the DaVinci, if there is a big hailstorm for example. He said that it
is guaranteed for 50 years, but if there is a big hailstorm one might actually weather a little bit better than
the other.
Smith stated that in his opinion, the DaVinci roof would hold up better through a hailstorm by virtue of his
having worked with the materials before. Michaud said that a windstorm is a little more common, and it
seems like that would be a little easier to blow off. Smith said they are warranted up to 90 miles an hour,
and he puts them on with stainless steel rim shank nails.
Wagner said the proposal says that with the metal roof, it is proposed to put on OSB sheeting, whereas
Smith has plywood CVX. Wagner said that that the CVX would be more durable and would be better for
the school in the long run.
Swaim asked where else Smith used the DaVinci roof. Smith said he only used the DaVinci shingles
once, up on Prairie du Chien Road. He said it is a fairly new product. Swaim said that up close, the
sample material looks very rubber like. She said that the appearance is important as well as the durability.
Smith said he has heard that they are molded from actual wooden shingles.
Historic Preservation Commission
November 3, 2008
Page 3
Ponto said Smith mentioned that the product has a UV protectant. He said one concern would be how
well the shingles would truly hold up for 50 years. Ponto said that plastics do tend to become brittle and
break. He said that he would like to have more information about longer -term durability, even though it is
not yet available for this fairly new product.
Michaud said that she would be concerned about uneven fade. She said there are four sides showing so
that one easily sees two sides at a time. Michaud said the material seems brittle.
Smith said it is a rigid plastic. He said it does not have any recycled rubber.
Downing asked when the original standing seam roof was put on over the shingles. Kuecker said she
believes it was done around 1914. Downing asked if the owner had considered a membrane roof, which
has battens on it to simulate the standing seam ridges. He said it is a vinyl, single -ply membrane roof
with vinyl battens glued on it to give the appearance of a standing seam roof. Smith said he was not
familiar with that type of roof.
Swaim asked Kuecker if she could explain Svendsen's point about historic alteration and if it means that
we're recognizing the historic integrity of the change. Kuecker said that is correct. She said there is the
original, and then there was an alteration to the building that has achieved a historic significance,
meaning that it is greater than the 50-year time frame and is also from the era when this building was
significant. Swaim and Bunting Eubanks said that makes this kind of a tossup.
Baldridge said that the second roof has a very poor track record. Downing said that the first metal roof
lasted 70 to 80 years, but the replacement did not last. He said that probably the shake roof flashing into
the vertical parapets on the corners didn't work. Downing said that now there is better flashing to handle
that situation.
Michaud said she has two concerns, one of which is that this scuffs readily. She said she can see fine
abrasions on it diagonally, and it is easy to scratch. Michaud said she does not believe the material is in
the Secretary of the Interior Standards for approved materials. Kuecker said that it is such a new material
that it has not been incorporated or even considered. Michaud said that since it is such a big question
mark, she did not know why someone would want to spend $30,000 more on it.
Bunting Eubanks agreed that the asphalt shingles are significantly cheaper. Kuecker pointed out that the
asphalt shingles are an approved Secretary of the Interior medium. She stated that Porter did make a
recommendation for asphalt shingles.
Bunting Eubanks asked Hendrickson if the Board of Trustees would be okay with using the less
expensive, asphalt material. Hendrickson confirmed this.
Baker said that in the past, when considering a new material, the Commission has spent some time doing
research on it. She said she was not certain that there was enough information to use the new product,
but there is not the luxury of time to do the research, because there is damage being done at this time.
Smith said that he would really like to propose the DaVinci shingles, because he has used them before
and thought it was a good product that would hold up well. He said, however, that 90% of the work he
does is with asphalt shingles, and he has no problem with that.
Baldridge asked Hendrickson if she has heard from the Board as to which of the materials it wants to use.
Hendrickson said that when the Board met, it discussed bids for the standing seam metal roof and the
DaVinci roof. She said just that day, Smith was asked about the asphalt shingles and the bid was
developed. Hendrickson said the Board discussed it and came up with the DaVinci as its first choice, and
the second choice was the asphalt. She stated that the Board really did not want to go with the metal roof.
Baldridge asked if it is incumbent upon the Commission to approve a specific material. Bunting Eubanks
responded that if the Commission finds either material acceptable, the choice can be left to the applicant.
She said if one of the choices is not acceptable, the Commission can specify.
Historic Preservation Commission
November 3, 2008
Page 4
Michaud said there is a huge difference between the materials. She said she had no confidence in a
decision to suddenly approve a PVC type product. Michaud said that it might seem more authentic, but it
is very regular, and cedar shakes were not regular or uniformly cut. She said there are other shingles that
look less jagged than that one that simulates cedar shakes.
Smith said that the shingles are shown in a straight line, but in installation, they can be staggered. He
said that would get rid of some of the uniformity of it. Smith said he proposed to install them with a slight
stagger.
Bunting Eubanks said that the issue with the metal roof seems not to be the roofing but the way it was put
on the building. She asked if there is a higher likelihood that the asphalt would be put on correctly
because of having more experience with the product. Smith stated that they go on the same as a wood
roof, which he has done a lot of.
Michaud asked if there are holes pre -drilled in the material for the nails so that there is no chance of it
splitting. Smith said there are not. He said he has been out in sub -zero weather with these trying to get
them to split, and they stay flexible in the cold weather. Smith said he has not had any trouble with nails
splitting the shingle. He said that there are designated spots on the shingles where they are supposed to
be nailed.
Swaim mentioned the Pueblo courthouse used as an example for the DaVinci product. Kuecker said the
building is on the National Register, but she did not know when that roof was installed. Swaim added that
the climate there is probably very different from Iowa's. Ponto said there is some precedence though that
the material was accepted for use on a National Register building.
Bunting Eubanks asked if anyone had an objection to either material. Hendrickson said the Board felt that
either product would work well but did not want to use the metal. She said the Board felt the new, shake
product looked more like the original than the standing seam. Hendrickson said the Board was trying to
find something the Commission would agree to. She said that the Board could save $30,000 by using the
asphalt. Hendrickson said the Board did not start with the asphalt, because it felt the two questions would
be between the standing seam and the DaVinci shingle.
Wagner said that one thing to keep in mind with the shake is what is the guarantee, particularly if the
roofer goes out of business, will the guarantee carry over. He suggested the Board consider exactly what
the guarantee would cover.
Smith said that both products have very specific warranties. He said he didn't think fading was covered
under either product. Smith said that it is mostly just blow off that is covered. He said that DaVinci is a
little bit better in that the guarantee covers material and labor, but the asphalt shingle warranty covers just
prorated material only. Smith said both products have transferable warranties whether his company is in
business or not.
Baldridge said he felt the Commission should approve both roofing materials and let the Preucil Board
make its own decision. Kuecker said the question is whether the new material meets the Secretary of the
Interior Standards. Baker said that when faced with a new material in the past, the Commission has spent
a month or more researching the material. Michaud said the fact that the product has been used once in
the area and once in the Southwest is not a very broad sample.
Bunting Eubanks asked if the Board would go for the asphalt if given a choice. Hendrickson said she
thought the Board would agree to that. Bunting Eubanks said she did not think it would necessarily cause
a conflict if the Commission only approved asphalt. Baldridge said the only thing is if the Preucil Board is
enamored of the shake appearance over the asphalt.
Hendrickson said that she is not worried about installation, because Smith has done good work on the
building before. Hendrickson said that it is probably down to which product will hold up the best, and she
is sure that if the Commission doesn't agree on the shakes, the asphalt will be fine, because that was the
second alternative.
Historic Preservation Commission
November 3, 2008
Page 5
Swaim said that since the Commission's job is to protect the building for the long-term and since the
record of the DaVinci material is unknown, she was inclined to think the asphalt is the best choice.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an asphalt wood shake -
style shingle roof with a high quality flashing material for the roof for 524 North Johnson Street.
Ponto seconded the motion.
Downing said he is a little surprised that the Commission is throwing over a standing seam roof so easily.
He said the Commission and School should consider this alternative. Hendrickson said the problem with
that is that it would go way into next spring again. She said the building is incurring so much damage
right now.
Michaud said that since the first layer was cedar shakes, it seems quite legitimate to go back to that.
Wagner said that there is no telling that maybe over the cedar shakes there was some asphalt shingle
before the metal was put on.
Michaud asked if there would be any insulation added in the ceiling. Smith said that would not be part of
this project, as this is a ventilated attic space. Wagner said the important thing in the bid is that one is
putting the CVX, which is plywood, over the one by six, which adds strength. He said that sometimes
they pull out the one by and put the plywood down and it become wavy. Wagner said that for a heavy
shingle like that you need that extra support. Smith said that the majority of the nails would be going
through the plywood into the one by, which gives good nail holding power.
Wagner said that the other thing that is important for this is the ice guard along the edge. Smith said that
he plans to cover the entire roof with it. Wagner said that would be even better.
Ponto said that the DaVinci material seems promising, but he did not feel the Commission has quite
enough information yet to approve it. He said he is not necessarily skeptical, but he is just not confident,
given the available information.
Swaim asked if the little points up on the ends will be in place. Smith said he did not intend to. He said he
planned to just use the regular hidden ridge shingles, which would have been part of the original wood
roof.
Michaud said that she walked around the building and noticed the flare around the edge. She said that
flare would need to be maintained. Smith said that the flare would be maintained.
The motion carried on a vote of 9-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
s/pcd/mins/hpc12008/hpc 11-3-08.doc
O
.N
N
.E
E
O
O
Ira
d
N
L
a
.O
r
N
LO
Xx XXXXX XX
c -X XXX�XO XX
-M IxIxI 11 lu0l>++<U,IOI1 'IXIXI 1 'I
1><I0ul i 1><I><Ixl'l><ILl0O' ILI>,lO0000 '
'0'*0 IxIxI 1>++++<X 1 'IXI ' I '
I lxlxI ' 1><H><X><I'0l ' 1>,I 1 I 1 I
IxIXI1 ,I-I0IXIXIXI0ii I IXI I 1
�I
1 to kxI 1ILUHXIXI�Iu HN 1 1I 11 I
N XX XX�X��XX
LO
co
-------------
wX
i
xxLUXXXXX
X0
a
O
00
-------------
x0XXx0x
XX
X
M
XXXX
1
X
04
X00
00
xxx�XXX
x
x
Lu
O
;
y
r
0
O
00
O
O
r
r
r
0)
O
O
r
O
O
r
r
0,
O
0
r
0
0
00
0
o
—
a7
�
O)
�
O
O)
a7
O
a7
O
0)
O
0)
0)
0)r
H W
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
Cl)
tm
a)
•L
c
c,co
c6
++
O,
>
E
M
a
rn
a
cEo
Zmmm0w
m
0
3
`—'
o
CLJ)
3
o
F-�3
`0
m
_0
N
N
7
U
x
W
C C N
N N Q
N - Q
d Q II
N
II II W
YX00