The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-14-2008 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, August 14, 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. 508 Rundell Street 2. 742 Dearborn Street D. Reconsideration of Certificate of Appropriateness for 803 E. College St E. Consideration of minutes for July 24, 2008 F. Other G. Adjournment 14m'a (;,iry __ _ Historic Preservation Commission �� s ('11� [fall, MEMORANDUM Date: August 11, 2008 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner Re: Historic Preservation Awards The Historic Preservation Awards are scheduled to take place in October, but now is the time to be looking for worthy recipients. If you know of a property that is deserving of a Historic Preservation Award, please let me know soon. The property does not have to be in a designated district. The award can be for additions, rehabilitation, paint and exterior finishes, new construction, stewardship, or any thing else you feel is an exemplary historic preservation undertaking. Friends of Historic Preservation, the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission and I are compiling a list of nominated projects. The list will be narrowed down and awards will be handed out in a public ceremony. Staff Report August 11, 2008 Historic Review for 508 Rundell Street Structure: Contributing Classification: Longfellow Iistoric District The applicant, Jennifer Cook, is requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 508 Rundell Street, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The proposed project is the addition of a 12' x 20' screened rear porch. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.9 Porches 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails 9.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Staff Comments This two-story hip roof house from c. 1925 is a good example of the Four Square design. It features broad eaves and a full width front porch. This house is higher than those across the street are and may have been built at an earlier date. The applicant would like to build a screened in porch on the rear (east) of the house. A 5' x 8' rear porch will be removed and a 12' x 20' screened rear porch is proposed. The applicant has indicated that the rear porch will match the front porch in details and roofline. The porch will be wood frame construction. The applicant has indicated that the columns, soffits, eaves, and other trim will match the front porch. The applicant has indicated treated lumber for the construction. The guidelines allow for the addition of new porches, provided the new porches are consistent with the historic house. The applicant has indicated that the screened porch will match the existing front porch. Handrails have not been shown, but if necessary, must be consistent with the Guidelines. Pretreated porch decking may be used for decking on rear porches, provided the gaps between the floorboards do not exceed 1/8 inch. In Staff's opinion, overall this project is consistent with the guidelines and the design of the existing structure. Staff recommends that paintable, untreated wood should be used for all wood above the porch decking. This will allow the wood to be painted immediately. If pretreated wood is used, all exposed wood should be painted when possible, approximately 6 months after completion. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 508 Rundell St as presented in the application with the following conditions: • Screens being wood framed • Porch skirting of the same style as the front porch, being installed between the porch piers • The roofline matching the roofline of the front porch • Details, such as trim, columns, soffits, eaves, and foundation piers, matching the front porch as close as possible • All exposed wood being painted • Any handrails must be consistent with 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook Ap , Aication for Historic Rev. w 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 secondThursday 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) M. Owner Jennif.er..Cook ...................................................................................... Phone.319-248-1563 ..................................................................... Address.508 Rundell Street........................................................................................ Iowa City 52240 .................................................................................zip ................... email Jennifer-cook@mchsi.com ................................................................... ® Contractor................................................................................ Address........................................................................... .................................................................................zip ................... Phone.............................................................................................. email................................................................................................ ® Consultant................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... .................................................................................zip-- ............. Phone.............................................................................................. ......................................................................................................... email............................................................................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: R Site plan EFloor plans 0 Building elevations Q Photographs Product information 0 Other.............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. For Staff Use: Date submitted ...�'..2. G ...... .......................... ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect j Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information Address of property ro er .508...Rundell.....Street..., ..Iowa..City., ..52240.... P P ..................................................... .................................................................................................................... Use of tY.ro er Residence. . . P P.................................................................................. Date constructed (if known)-1920......................... Historic Designation Q This property is a local historic landmark OR n This property is located in the: Brown Street Historic District College Green Historic District East College Street Historic District Longfellow Historic District rl Summit Street Historic District n Woodlawn Historic District DClark Street Conservation District College Hill Conservation District n Dearborn Street Conservation District Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing Noncontributing El Nonhistoric Project Type 0 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) E] Construction of new building rl Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance QOther.............................................................................................. Project description This project involves expanding the existing 5 x 8 foot back porch to a 12 x 20 screened in back porch at the back of the t .................... ......................................... .............................. ....................................................................... I.................................................................................. A color rendering of the proposed project is included. The style of the roof line will match both the existing back porch an, ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. front porch of the house. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................I..........I ............. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............... .......................................................................................................................... . ........................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Materials to be used Treated lumber will be used to construct the deck, posts and rafters. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............. .... ......................................................... .............. ...... .......... ......................... ........... ..... ................................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .............. ........................ ................. .... ....................... .................................. ................................................................. ....................... .................. I........................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes The existing back porch (5 x 8 feet) will be expanded to 12 x 20 feet and will be screened-in. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I...........I...... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ~1A, ® yr - d».,� .a .... . . i v r � ' . _ ..e+' .x tK ��,.$ 'fir ,e- '� It„'�q�:, ? 5q i �'r•} s - .� e. W R .. a i�a: � - �� •••. • s Y s8. 7� : � (j � ' '.. •ic i , (�t a ~� «' > •Ill' , e F � l _.. e.. ° t •� E,,, L `',""�� .. , � � -, t� � ,�`�,r�+aw� '� ,j ♦ R. �p g +,,, � y} � �'' • y •�, �r ail • ". t ��y''.y� _ '� x � �& �P .''' _ �T _"�. MR Y, - � %3.'!` • . ."'fir. 6a '� , aM� �'' .ir. +i� yt�' F s.r .tad e • s. �} • � ' .fig .a' . } � �� g { ,ate t� j �."� - � a F v� � { �� I"• = i ycy �y� ��y t°.*.�` vim. , is ,'JF ••+°hh k 4 g• r r �R! F ti. _ x x n k .� .,r , . a±d .. +x`n �?...+� vim, ..�@a '..+:' `•_+.�. . ,. ?�:'aa'a+- , 0 N z� co N z� 16 00 w v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W Q W i i i i T i i t laN ZI Staff Report August 11, 2008 Historic Review for 742 Dearborn Street District: Dearborn Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Deb Quade, is requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 742 Dearborn Street, a contributing property the Dearborn Street Conservation District. She is seeking approval to construct an addition to the rear of the main structure of the house. The proposed addition is a 26' 4" x 9' one-story addition and consists of a breakfast area, mudroom, and rear porch. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Windows 4.8 Doors 4.9 Porches 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails 9.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Staff Comments At the time of the survey, this house was one story and had a hip roof. At the time, this house was a good example of a simple bungalow design from c. 1925. The house still features a broad porch, but no longer a single story, the hipped roof and dormer, or the exposed rafter ends. A second story was added to the house in 1999, converting the hip roof to a gable roof with wide side dormers. The applicant is proposing an addition to the east (rear) side of the existing house. This addition is 26' 4" x 9' and includes a breakfast/dining area, a mudroom, and a rear porch. The addition has a hip roof with approximately 3:12 slope. Siding is to be fiber cement board. Trim, porch railings, porch posts, fascia, and soffits will be wood. Three new double hung wood windows will be installed. The foundation is to be concrete block. The guidelines allow for additions to historic houses provided the addition is compatible in design with the historic building and does not detract from the structure. Staff believes this addition is compatible with the house and does not detract from the structure. In general, staff finds that the application meets the guidelines. Staff believes having only one exterior door to the porch and eliminating the second set of stairs may make the addition more compatible and functional, but the presence of a second door does not impair the compatibility of the addition. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 742 Dearborn Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: • The applicant having the option of having one entrance directly to the yard and one to the porch or having only one entrance to the porch. If one entrance is desired, an additional window may be placed in the location of the door to the yard. • Fiber cement board siding being smooth finish and of a dimension that matches the existing siding • All porch elements being constructed of wood and all exposed wood being painted • Windows being one -over -one, double hung, wood or metal -clad wood windows to match existing • All handrails must be consistent with 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. An illustration of an appropriate handrail is included. 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 7� of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Date submitted ? ..�� ....C..:.................... Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgov.org/HPhandbook X Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the seconclThursday of each month. During ❑ Major review the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourthThursday. Applications ❑ Intermediate review are due in the PCD Office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. ❑ Minor review See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) Q Owner. .........✓ ................... Phone..................................................... f 1' Address.......... 2........►.....G............... ..................................... ........................... ................. zipo email...........................................................r.................................... Contractor ...-,.�1� ... 4� 5. i :............... Add ress . Z.1.(W-r.. .G>r. .... �� .lf`..........�./... ..... C.S..�"ti.... .��4.............. zip��.i..� Phone... ...................................................... email................................................................................................ Consultant................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... ........................................ .... ............. ........................ zip ................... Phone.............................................................................................. ......................................................................................................... email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Site plan fl—Tloor plans Building elevations Q Photographs Q Product information Other.............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property.......p..-�...//..�� 6 '(.................. L:�.'................................. ................................ ............ ...................... .............i........................I............ Use of property ...... 1.%,..a ` 1 F ................................................ Date constructed (if known) ....... %..... �........ .... ............... Historic Designation 0 This property is a local historic landmark OR Q This property is located in the: ® Brown Street Historic District Q College Green Historic District n East College Street Historic District n Longfellow Historic District Summit Street Historic District Woodlawn Historic District Clark Street Conservation District El College Hill Conservation District Dearborn Street Conservation District ® Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within he district, this property is classified as: Contributing Noncontributing 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) 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 Q Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance Other.............................................................................................. Project description ......................... . . -- .........-1....... .G .��r...... ' -,,.,r .......- ... 1................... C0.. .......................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ........... I...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ......... I ........... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Materials to be used /. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......... ............... .... ..................................... ......................................................... .................... .................................. ........................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes ........... .................................................................. .................................................... I ............................. .................................................................................. ...-� .............c.[...i..: ...................... 0 13 IliaiI lm OF-- at I nliilili� 96�� 28x, DH 742 DEARBORN Ft- C)OR Pt AN EX!STING FDN BLK FDN ON c,bxi REINFD FTG '0r)G'FD FOAM ��x8 MU ON x 1 x i F T MIJ ON 24xIxi2 FTG 4'2" �kELOW GRADE- TR Rif PLANI R ,owa Department of Cultural Affairs State Historical Society of Iowa Iowa Site Inventory Form r -,winfinuation Sheet Page 3 Name of Property JQhnson Countyintowa Site Number E;R MECcheck Compliance Report MECcheck Software Version 3.0 Release la 1995 MEC Edition CITY: Iowa City STATE: Iowa HDD: 6227 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Single Family DATE: 06/27/08 DATE OF PLANS: 4-22-2008 PROJECT INFORMATION: Breakfast and Mudd room addition at 742 Dearborn St. Iowa City, Iowa COMPANY INFORMATION: Lange Construction Solon, Iowa Mike Lange NOTES: File# Lange3021 COMPLIANCE: Passes Maximum UA = 49 Your Home = 43 12.2% Better Than Code Ceiling 1: All -Wood Joist/Rafter/Truss Exterior Wall 1: Wood Frame, 16" o.c. Window 1: Wood Frame, Double Pane with Low-E Door 1: Opaque Crawl 2: CMU with Empty Cells Furnace 1: Forced Hot Air, 94 AFUE Air Conditioner 1: Electric Central Air, 10 SEER Permit Number Checked By/Date Gross Glazing Area or Cavity Cont. or Door Perimeter R-Value R-Value U-Factor UA 130 40.0 3.0 4 221 19.0 3.0 8 36 0.340 12 40 0.300 12 132 14.0 3.0 7 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT: The proposed building design described here is consistent with the building plans, specifications, and other calculations submitted with the permit application. The proposed building has been designed to meet the 1995 MEC requirements in MECcheck Version 3.0 Release I a. Builder/Designer Date MECcheck Inspection Checklist MECcheck Software Version 3.0 Release la 1995 MEC Edition DATE: 06/27/08 Bldg. Dept. Use Roofs: 1. Ceiling 1: All -Wood Joist/Rafter/Truss, R-40.0 cavity + R-3.0 continuous insulation Comments/Location Above -Grade Walls: 1. Exterior Wall 1: Wood Frame, 16" o.c., R-19.0 cavity + R-3.0 continuous insulation Continents/Location Windows: 1. Window 1: Wood Frame, Double Pane with Low-E, U-factor: 0.340 For windows without labeled U-factors, describe features: # Panes Frame Type Thermal Break? [ ] Yes [ ] No Comments/Location Doors: 1. Door 1: Opaque, U-factor: 0.300 Comments/Location Crawl Space Walls: 1. Crawl 2: CMU with Empty Cells, 4.0' ht/3.5' bg/4.0' insul, R-14.0 cavity + R-3.0 continuous insulation Comments/Location Applies to walls of unventilated crawl spaces. Heating and Cooling Equipment: [ ] 1. Furnace 1: Forced Hot Air, 94 AFUE or higher Make and Model Number [ ] 2. Air Conditioner 1: Electric Central Air, 10 SEER or higher I Make and Model Number Air Leakage: Joints, penetrations, and all other such openings in the building envelope that are sources of air leakage must be sealed. Recessed lights must be type IC rated and installed with no penetrations or installed inside an appropriate air -tight assembly with a 0.5" clearance from combustible materials and 3" clearance from insulation. Vapor Retarder: Required on the warm -in -winter side of all non -vented framed ceilings, walls, and floors. Materials Identification: Materials and equipment must be identified so that compliance can be determined. Manufacturer manuals for all installed heating and cooling equipment and service water heating equipment must be provided. Insulation R-values, glazing U-values, and heating equipment efficiency must be clearly marked on the building plans or specifications. Duct Insulation: [ ] Ducts in unconditioned spaces must be insulated to R-5. 198_ ® Q - - Historic Preservation Commission Ot.v I fall, .I 10 I ( \\ ashingo III Si I-(" I , I ,\ea (ate . I A. i_'.' 1i) MEMORANDUM Date: August 11, 2008 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner Re: 803 E. College St — Reconsideration This project was first reviewed at the July 10 meeting of the Commission. At the time, the Commission denied an application to alter the roofline at the location of the built in gutters. At the July 24 meeting, the applicant asked the Commission to reconsider the application, as he was unable to attend the July 10 meeting. The Commission approved the reconsideration. The applicant started the work on the roof without a obtaining a building permit or historic review. When a stop work order was given, the applicant applied for historic review and indicated that there would be no exterior change to the property. This prompted the Chair and staff to approve a Certificate of No Material Effect for the reroofing and removal/covering of built in gutters. When the work was completed, the once flared eaves of the house had been straightened. This straightening resulted in the lowering of the soffits and covering of the frieze board. The space for an appropriate frieze board had been eliminated. The guidelines allow for the covering of the original built-in gutters only if the roof slope is not altered. The roof slope was altered at the location of the built-in gutter. In the original staff report, staff indicated three possible options to address the roof. 1. removal of the new roof and reconstruction to make the new roof match the historic roof 2. reinstall the brackets without a frieze board as has been done 3. install a frieze board of the same dimensions as the original frieze board under the soffits along with the reinstallation of the decorative brackets. At the July 10 meeting, the Commission decided the option that upheld the guidelines, was most appropriate for the house, and best for the district was option 1. When reconsidering this application, Staff advises the Commission not to be arbitrary or capricious. If an exception to the guidelines is made, an appropriate reason should be sited in order not to create a negative precedent. Staff has provided summaries of four projects in which the Commission discussed the changing of roof slopes. The dates of the meetings and pages of the minutes are noted. The applicant has provided a statement from the contractor stating the reasons the roof slope was changed. Please refer to the July 10 staff report and packet for more information on this property. Aug 04 08 10.54p Nathan Yoder 31 M56 3929 p.1 YodeN Rnomw de Rcio . M Alk RwsmocloOM COP 024011-1170 To whom it may concern, 814108 We changed the built-in gutters to a pitch roof due to the severely rotten wood. To rebuild the gutters would have taken too much money and time, plus possibly needed to be redone In ten years. Having added pitch to the roof will eliminate leakage into the wad. thus preventing decay and black mold. I do not feel it would be wise at all to put in built-in gutters, therefore am NOT willing to change it. Sincerely, Nathan Yoder Precedents for Altering Roof Slope 1.) 517 Grant Street (9-08-05, pages 8-9) This house is a Contributing Structure in Longfellow Historic District. Application was to cover built-in gutters, but in such a way that roof pitch would be altered. Applicants concern was due to roof leaking. COA was sought after some work was done. The Commission felt section 4.11 of the Guidelines clearly disallowed altering the pitch of the roof. COA for roof alteration denied 1-6. Applicant appealed to City Council and City Council was apparently sympathetic. Discussed again at HPC 2-22-06. Resolution of issues related to covering of built-in putters (2-22-06, pages 1-6) Commission members articulated belief that original intent of Guidelines was to allow for some small pitch for drainage, just enough for drainage but not enough to alter appearance of roof. It was felt it would be a reasonable change to the guidelines to allow for a small pitch for drainage when covering built-in gutters. It was proposed to resolve the issue in the 517 Grant Street case by retroactively granting a Certificate of Appropriateness using the Commission's power to grant a special exception. Carlson said that approval would be based on the information that was presented to City Council and to the Commission informally and the fact that given the way the Commission was interpreting the guidelines for flat roofs earlier, there was no reasonable cost alternative for the owner at that time. Commission members expressed concern over establishing precedent and that a reversal of a previous decision will invite appeals by applicants unhappy about decisions reached. Commissioners felt they could reverse course under Section 3.6, because the Guidelines weren't clear and a minor slope was a realistic possibility. Also, that this wouldn't be changing the Guidelines so much as clarifying what was originally intended. 517 Grant Street, reapplication (3-16-06, page 4) The Commission was more or less willing to go along with the kind of compromise that was proposed, to retroactively approve a certificate of appropriateness, given the nature of the circumstance, which involved confusion on the part of Commission members as to the exact interpretation of guideline 4.11. In the future, the Commission resolves to be more specific. Carlson stated that because the final result is not much different from what the Commission probably would have approved with a lower pitch of some kind, because the project did not actually involve removing historic material but merely covered over historic material, and because the Commission was internally divided as to the exact interpretation of Section 4.11, he felt that in this narrow case, the Commission could make a special exception. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 517 Grant Street... The motion carried on a vote of 5-0-1. with Weitzel abstaining from the vote. 2.) 30 South Governor (5-04-06, pages 8-9) This is landmark property in a Conservation District. The Roof pitch was changed slightly on the shed in the rear of house to allow for better drainage. Ponto said the change in the pitch of the shed roof is not substantial and is okay with him. Carlson said the Commission has allowed changes in pitch for drainage before, and this does not obscure anything original on the house. Weitzel said it is also on a previously altered part of the building. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 30 South Governor Street, as proposed, with the clarification that wood siding will be used to repair the damaged wood siding. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 3.) 817 Iowa Avenue (6-22-06, pages 7-8) This is a non-contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. It was a tornado -damaged home. The applicant wished to alter the height to make a hip roof instead of a gable and to open up the porch. It would take more height to do a hip roof. Carlson said the proposed design significantly alters the current shape of the roof and the massing, but others felt the designation as non-contributing was a result of significant previous alterations to the building. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 817 Iowa Avenue, as proposed in the revised drawings. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1. with Carlson voting no. 4.) 934 Iowa Avenue (10-12-06, pages 8-14) This is a contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. A CNME was offered at the 9-28-06 meeting, but applicant completed work over the next weekend, failing to complete work so roof looked same as before. There was issue with the permit (whether issued, or whether applicant said was given, was not clear). It is revealed that there is also an issue with the property line; if constructed as existed before work completed, the roof overhang would have crossed the line against code. HPC offered CNME on re -building as is; didn't know about property line issue. This was also a tornado damaged structure. Ponto said that although having a flair is a distinctive architectural feature, given the significant tornado damage to this house, he would be willing to go with what is there now. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 934 Iowa Avenue, taking into account the code situation with the property line that would not allow the roof to be constructed exactly as it had been originally. Brennan seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1, with Toomey votinq no. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Ponto, Victor Tichy STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Ken Duffey, Greg Duffey, John Martinek, Kevin Monson, Kirstin VanGilder, Mike Wombacher CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Wombacher introduced himself as one of the two owners of 803 East College Street. He said that neither he nor the co-owner of the property could attend the July l Oth Commission meeting regarding this property. Wombacher asked for reconsideration of the Commission's decisions and said he did not intend to do things in an improper order. He said that this property was as close to demolition as possible, because he knew of someone else who was planning to buy it. Wombacher said he bought the property, because he believes in what the Commission is doing. He said that he likes restoration and likes antiques. Wombacher said that the porch was not up to standards. He said he rebuilt the porch, exposed all the decorative shingles underneath the siding, and took out the metal posts on the back porch and replaced them with cedar decorative posts. Wombacher said he knows that the eaves on the house were a big thing; he said they were extremely rotted and actually quite unsafe. He said he did extend out and should have known they can't be that way. Wombacher said that unfortunately the contractor said that he cannot go straight out and just cover over the gutters. He said there is ice damming in the winters, and this is a flat surface. Wombacher said that it would have been a lot cheaper, and he would have loved to have done that. He said that the way it is, he spent $36,000 just redoing the roof and eaves. Wombacher said that to have them go back now, they've got it all back on, and put up flat, yes, it could be done, but what expense, he did not know, because his current contractor will not do it, and even then there will be the same problems with the ice dams. Wombacher said that one could not have that and still be structurally sound to the property. Wombacher stated that they did put in a vinyl window in front, because there was a canopy window. He said he took off the vertical siding, because it is not of the period. Wombacher said he got the siding the best he could to match front and back of the carriage house. He said he would take that window out and maybe would use the suggestion of making it look like carriage doors. Wombacher said he wanted to ask for reconsideration on the eaves, because it is just unfeasible. He said that when one looks at the property that is rotting and in disrepair, one hasn't seen very much of the total work involved —very little of the cost of repairing the building is seen from the outside. Kuecker said that in order to reconsider the motion, one of the commissioners who voted against it must make a motion to reconsider. She said that if a motion to reconsider passes, all that can be discussed is the merits of a reconsideration. Kuecker said the application would then need to be put on the next meeting's agenda to give notice, as for any other application. Wombacher said that if he is allowed to keep this as it is, he would put a frieze board under it. He said he had always intended to put the decorative brackets back up. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 2 MOTION: Baldridge moved that the Commission reconsider the denial of a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 803 East College Street that resulted in the requirement that the roof be returned to its original configuration. Swaim seconded the motion. Swaim said she voted for the option of leaving it as it is now with the frieze board and the brackets in place. She said she wished it could be the way it was, but given the circumstances of ice dams and the expense that was already invested, she continues to think that option is the best one. Swaim said it is very hard to make these decisions when something has already been done. She said the fact that the owners followed all the other guidelines suggests that something wasn't clearly understood about the project. Baker said she also has great sympathy for the situation and the fact that this is, has been, and will be a huge expense. She said her concern is that there are other people who have done very expensive work who have come before the Commission, and the Commission has required them to change the work back. Baker said this is a slippery slope - that by agreeing to reconsider this one, it opens up the floodgates to reconsider all of them. She said it is a dangerous precedent to set. Swaim said that the difficulty here involves a communication gap. She said that the owner and staff person do talk quite a lot in these situations but wondered if there is a beefed-up procedure that could be used. Swaim said that some of these situations are falling into that area where it's not clear. She added that so many of the other features of the house are being restored that she felt one could live without this one. Baldridge said that part of it is a failure of education. He said the ability to reach the populace is difficult. Baldridge said the Commission needs to carry out its responsibility to inform the community of what needs to be done with historic structures. Wombacher asked if there is a way to notify buyers at the time of purchase. Kuecker said that when the property is in a historic district, it is a zoning consideration and should therefore come up at the time of sale. Trimble said the permit that was issued said that it would be exactly the same, so it is not necessarily a lack of education in this case. Wombacher said that he was stranded for some time in Cedar Rapids and had discussions with Kuecker on the phone. He said the question that was asked of his partner is, is there any exterior change, and his answer was no, because they didn't look at that as being a change to it. Wombacher said that if it were kept flat, the only other way was they were going to put rafters to fill in the L part, which would be the same to him. He said he wasn't changing the pitch of the roof, just extending it. Wombacher said that once the carpenter got into it, that's what he did, because that's what he saw as the only way to correct it. He had no intent of taking the chimney out and had gotten a bid of $3,400 to retuckpoint the chimneys. Wombacher said his intent was to retuckpoint the chimneys, but the one of the workers leaned on it and literally took it down, and the other one was split all the way up. He said that when they dismantled it, they dismantled it brick by brick; there was just sand in between. Wombacher said it was after the fact, three days later, that he found out they had taken it down. He said it was a safety factor for them. Kuecker said that on the original application for the roof, under exterior appearance: changes, it says none. She said the certificate of no material effect for the roof was issued based on that information — that there would be no change. Swaim said there is another layer of communication between the owner, the staff person, and then there's the contractor and the builder. She stated that the chance of everything getting conveyed down to the builder is another place where everything seems to be vague or pragmatic. Wombacher said that he is trying to fix this up. He said he has pages of things to be done from the building department, and all of a sudden, the thing is not available for a rental permit when it was a rental before, because so much has happened since they bought it, because the past inspectors obviously passed it to get rental permits. Wombacher said that from windows to storms to the fire protection to doors and hardware, Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 3 that it passed all those years, and all of a sudden they're getting two pages of stuff inside again. Wombacher said it's not the Commission's issue, but they are getting it from both sides. Ken Duffey stated that he has been a general contractor for 40 years, doing primarily residential remodeling and new construction. He said regarding ice dams, that he has seen an increasing amount in the last several years. Duffey said he is really familiar with built-in gutters, and if there is one design in a house of any age that is more prone than others to water incursion, it's built-in gutters. Duffey said that some of the things that have changed in the recent past that this is may be a little different than okaying other projects because of cost or whatever brings up a new current issue, which is mold. He said that when one has water incursion, one gets mold almost immediately. Duffey said that from his experience, the built-in gutters pretty much guarantee that is going to happen to a house. He said that can be seen in Cedar Rapids, where the FEMA trailers are being returned because of mold. Duffey said that he has won historic preservation awards for some of the work he has done. He said that there are just some things that have to be updated because of conditions that come up, especially mold. Downing said the Commission has allowed the covering up of built-in gutters frequently. He said when that has happened, they were covered up, but the roof still was not changed. Downing said that the profile of the roof can be maintained with a standard shingle over it. Trimble said since she has been on the Commission every time someone comes before the Commission and wants to get rid of the built in gutters they allow it. She said they have never changed the roof. Wombacher said that shingles cannot go past a certain grade; they will not be guaranteed. Downing said that one could shingle on a 3:12 with an asphalt shingle. He said that this house is probably more like an eight or ten:twelve. Wombacher said that is where they are saying he will get ice damming, because it goes under the shingle. Downing said that his house goes from a three — twelve to a twelve — twelve at the breaking point. He said one can do that because shingles flex. Wombacher said it was a misunderstanding then, and he wishes he would have known that. He said it would have been a lot cheaper. The motion to reconsider this at the Commission's next meeting carried on a vote of 5-2, with Baker and Trimble voting no. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 629 Oakland Avenue. Kuecker stated that this property contains a bungalow -style house. She said the owners want to put a porch addition on the rear of the house. Kuecker showed where the porch would be located, saying that the stairs and door would be removed and a new window would be placed in the location of the door. She said that the other door would become functional again. Kuecker showed the elevations of the proposed porch. She said it would be a screened -in porch, using wood frame and metal screening. Kuecker said she considered putting this on the consent items agenda but was hesitant to do so because it is an addition. Kuecker said the owners would use a wood construction, with all the details including the brackets, barge board, rafter tails, and trim to match what is currently on the house. She stated that the siding at the gable end will be wood siding to match the siding on the house. Kuecker said that the piers and the skirt will match the front porch, and the front stairs will be made of wood with a wood handrail to meet the guidelines. She said that staff recommends approval of the project as proposed in the application. Kuecker pointed out that the piers on the back porch will be shorter than the ones on the front porch to allow for the screening. She added that they will be clad in brick to match the foundation and the piers on the front porch. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 4 Swaim asked about the concrete piers sided with stucco -textured fiber cement board mentioned in the staff report. Kuecker said that was a mistype left over from an application for a different property. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 629 Oakland Avenue as proposed. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 502 '/2 Clark Street. Kuecker stated that at its last meeting, the Commission discussed the location of the garage proposed for this property. She said the applicant wanted an exception from the guidelines in order to site the garage to front of the primary structure. Kuecker said that the reason the Commission approved the exception was because of the unique situation of this property in that there is no street frontage, and there is an entire another house in front of where the garage would be located. Kuecker said the owner is now back with the design of the garage and the paving that would be needed for the driveway. She said that because there was an exception to the guidelines granted, the Commission is allowed to discuss the paving and the makeup of the paving. Kuecker stated that six months ago, the applicant received approval for an addition, re -siding of the house, and reconstruction of the front porch. She showed the front and east sides of the garage as proposed, as well as the south and west sides. Kuecker said the siding, windows, and trim would match what was previously approved for the house. She referred to information in the packet that describes the garage door design. Kuecker said that the only deviation from the previous application is that the owner had proposed just a 20 by 22-foot garage and is now proposing an eight by twelve garden room/too] shed/bump out. She said that even though it was not previously approved in the site plan, it does not detract from the original intent of the application. Kuecker said that at the previous meeting, the Commission also asked the applicant to minimize the amount of paving. She said that the applicant and staff worked together and came up with a new proposal for paving. Kuecker said the sidewalk would be brick or pavers of some sort. She said staff is recommending a decorative brick edge around the driveway, and if a path is needed between the two stairs, recommends making it some sort of stepping stone design to mitigate the amount of concrete that would be needed in the front yard of this property. Kuecker stated that staff is recommending approval of this application as presented in the application, with a specific site plan and with the requirement that there be one and one-half feet of open space between the edge of the garage and the sidewalk as shown, to allow for some planting on that side. Martinek said he was at the meeting to represent McDonough Structures and was available to answer questions. He said the applicant is very willing to accommodate staff regarding the concrete and decorative plantings. Swaim asked if there was any thought toward making the driveway narrow in the middle to give it sort of an hourglass shape and then making it wider as it gets closer to the two doors. Kuecker said there is a chance it could get a little bit thinner, but cars will be backing out of the garage and will need enough room to be navigable. Michaud asked how long the driveway would be. Martinek said that it is about 28 feet to the curb and 45 feet total. Baldridge asked about the purpose of staff s original suggestion about having a permeable surface in the driveway. Kuecker said the Commission had discussed that at the last meeting, but what the City Building Department will allow has not been explored. She added that it would be more expensive. Baldridge said Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 5 that the County plans to use such a substance for one of its parking lots, and he had wondered about the feasibility of that. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 502 '/2 Clark Street as presented in the application and site plan, with the requirement that 1.5 feet of paving be removed from the east side of the garage to allow for a landscaped area, as shown on the plan prepared by staff. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 9 South Linn Street. Kuecker stated that this property is one of the City's National Register and local landmark buildings. She said it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982 for architectural significance and for its association with the lives of George and Harriet Van Patten. Kuecker said the applicant is proposing several changes to the building in order to make the building ADA compliant for a new tenant. She said that in order to do that, the applicant does not want to alter the front of the building at all and wants to make as many of the changes to the rear and side of the property, keeping the impact on the only visible side to a minimum. Kuecker said the first alteration is the construction of a ramp on the south side of the property. She showed a wood gate that would be removed, with a ramp to be constructed up to what is now an enclosed porch. Kuecker said another alteration would be to open up the porch and restore the floors and some of the other elements of the porch. She said the applicant is requesting to be able to install a synthetic porch floor rather than a wood porch floor. Kuecker stated that the Commission has allowed synthetic porch flooring, primarily in cases where moisture may be a problem, and in this case, moisture could be a problem because of the proximity of neighboring buildings. Kuecker said there are several window wells along that same pathway that are quite deteriorated. She said that the applicant would like to fill those in with a synthetic material. Kuecker said that one of the window wells is still a window, but most of them have been filled in with wood. She said that because of the proximity of the other two buildings, no light gets into these, but because of the paving between the two buildings, moisture does get in. Kuecker said the applicant is also proposing to install a wrought iron gate for security purposes and also a gate on the north side, where the dumpster enclosure would be removed. Kuecker said that staff is recommending approval of this application as presented, subject to the conditions that the porch decking material be approved by staff, the gate design be approved by staff; and the rear door, which would be made bigger to meet ADA requirements, be subject to staff approval. Monson thanked Kuecker for getting the project on the agenda past the due date for the meeting. Monson said that the ramp itself and the deck are actually on shared property. He said that the property line is actually centered between two buildings, and he would have to receive approval of the adjacent landowner to make certain he also approves of this. Monson said there also may need to be another gate. He said that to the north there is a narrow pathway that leads to Iowa Avenue that needs to be closed off. Monson said that it is not on his property, so he will have to coordinate with a neighboring property owner. Monson pointed out that there are windows on the north that he would be closing up. He said that on that narrow path there are some foundation openings that he would like to close up. Monson said his intent is just to close them up slightly via the back of the face of the brick detailing and the window openings will still be there. Monson stated that after he submitted this application he began to have roof problems, and now he will have to replace the roof. He said the building has a membrane roof that it is obviously not original to the building. Monson said that the roof is not visible, so he did not know if he would have to submit another Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 6 application. Kuecker responded that it would require another application but might be eligible for a certificate of no material effect. Downing asked where the dumpsters would be moved if they are removed. Monson said that his goal is to confer with The Yacht Club owner and share a dumpster with that building as well as with the Vogel House. Michaud asked if there were any drawings for the restoration of the porch. Monson said that he had not yet produced drawings. He stated that it is a very unusual porch and may have extended beyond the base of the brick at one point. Monson said that it has since been truncated, and the wood trim and the enclosures are not original. He said his intent is to restore the metal and repair it, but he did not know how it would deal with the back, because it is not original and never had the proper overhang. Swaim said the porch is therefore not being repaired to look as it currently does, and Monson confirmed this, saying he is not yet certain how it will look. Swaim said that is something the Commission would need to know before giving approval for this. Monson said his intent is to restore the columns that were metal columns, taking out the infill that has been added and going back to the original. He said his hope is not to add new fabric at all but actually restore the original and take out the additive pieces that were not originally there. Monson said the floor would be brought up, because it would be the platform for the ADA access ramp. He said that the porch does not have a wood floor in it; it is concrete, and there a cellar access. Downing asked where the lot line is to the west. Monson showed the west lot line on a map of the property. Baldridge asked Monson if he had looked at the fire plans at the Historical Society, because they would show the extent of the original porch. Monson replied that he has not seen those. He said he feels the porch was added on sometime in the 1900s. Bunting Eubanks said that the Commission could approve a porch design to be approved by staff or the chair and staff. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 9 South Linn Street with the following conditions: the porch decking materials, the gate design, and the door are to be approved by staff; the windows on the north side are to be filled in as those on the south side will be; and the porch design is to be approved by staff and the chair. Baker seconded the motion. Michaud stated that on her house, the original porch was L-shaped, and it was then built into a square by 1920. She suggested that the original L-shaped or extended porch footprint would be on the earlier fire maps. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 330 South Summit Street. Kuecker said that this property is on the northeast corner of Summit and Court Streets, and the applicant is proposing an addition to the rear of the property to accommodate the needs of the owner on the first floor. She said that the current owner did restore the front porch to match some historic photographs of the property. Kuecker said that the owner is a proponent of historic preservation and has done other work on the property that meets the guidelines. Kuecker showed the location for the proposedaddition. She showed the site plan for the addition and the east elevation. Kuecker said that the proposed addition has a three and one-half to twelve hip roof, and the siding will be fiber cement board siding and trim to match the profile of the existing wood siding and trim on the house. Kuecker stated that the new windows are intended to match the existing windows on the Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 7 house, and the foundation of the addition would be rough -faced concrete block to match the existing foundation. Kuecker showed the south elevation and the north elevation. She said the guidelines do allow for additions to historic homes, provided the addition is compatible with the design of the historic building and does not detract from the structure. Kuecker said that staff has some concerns about the pitch of the addition roof looking a bit strange with the pitch of the existing roof. She added that a steep pitch is not very practical for a one-story addition, and a shallower pitch may be more appropriate. Kuecker said the guidelines also state that additions that are near the front of the property must be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane. She said that although this is on the rear of the house, it is on the front fagade of Court Street, so in order for it to fully comply with the guidelines, it would need to be set back at least 18 inches from the Court Street fagade of the house. Kuecker said that as part of the addition project, the rear porch would be removed, and a new rear porch would be constructed on the addition. She said the specifications for the balustrades, handrails, and columns were not given, but based on the drawings, they are fairly simple, as are what is currently on the porch. Kuecker said that in general, staff finds that the application meets the guidelines for additions. However, she added that the Longfellow Neighborhood design guidelines regarding site and scale state that, "On Summit Street only, the rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 from the front street." Kuecker said this restriction is intended to preserve the openness of rear yards. Kuecker showed where approximately 125 feet from Summit Street would be located, based on the drawing and the assessors' site, which would leave the applicant only about five feet in which to construct the addition. Kuecker said staff feels that if the intent of the guideline was to preserve the openness of the rear yards, an exception may be warranted in this case. She referred to an aerial photograph showing that this lot is by far the widest and one of the deepest lots on this side of Summit Street, and the addition would not deter from the openness of the backyard in this case. Kuecker said that even with the addition, this lot would have 4,000 more square feet of open space than any other lot on the east side of the street between Burlington and Bowery Streets. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of a certificate of appropriateness for this addition with a few conditions: that the roof pitch be altered to be more shallow in order to be more compatible with the existing house, that the final roof design be subject to staff approval, that the Court Street fagade of the addition be set back 18 inches from the existing elevation, and that the windows and doors be wood or metal clad wood to match the existing windows and doors and be subject to staff approval. Greg Duffey said that on the south side of the house from Court Street, one can barely see the house because of the vegetation. He said that they would like to not have the 18-inch offset there Greg Duffey said that if one looks at the floor plan, that is the narrow part of the house with the bathroom and hall. He said he was not certain how well that would work to change that. Greg Duffey said that also, along the south side, there is an existing screened porch that is much farther, and there is also a bay window. He said the addition is well back 18 inches from the porch or the bay window. Greg Duffey said he would prefer to have just a different trim board at that location to delineate the structures. Ken Duffey said that the porch roof could possibly be changed to a lower pitch. He said that he has done preservation work and remodeling on a lot of the old houses in town, and it is not at all uncommon to have lower pitched roofs on additions and what often started out as porches to begin with. Ken Duffey said it is not at all uncommon to have several different roof lines on houses of this age and style. Ken Duffey said the architect has indicated that the roof slope would be lower than this anyway, because he is trying to miss the windows above, and there was a correction in that. He said it will be lower than that no matter what. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 8 Michaud asked if the window on the right side is single -pane or casement. Ken Duffey said that it is a double -hung window that was not drawn in well. Baldridge said that he would not like to see the pitch of the roof any flatter than it is so that it misses the window. Greg Duffey said that is what he would prefer too, from a practical standpoint. Baldridge said that is true even from an architectural standpoint. Regarding the setback from the house, Swaim stated that there is shrubbery there now that might not always be there, and then the area would be quite open. She said that without a setback, it begins to look unnaturally long for a house of that era. Swaim said given the sense of Queen Annes having lots of little add-ons, it would seem appropriate to have it be a little bit narrower. She said that this is such a glorious house and did not think a change in the trim board would be sufficient to distinguish the addition. Greg Duffey asked if he set it back 18 inches in a change to the east a couple of feet and then came back out to that house line if it would be acceptable. Ken Duffey suggested installing another bay window as an offset. Greg Duffey said that the 18-inch is the narrow part of the house. He said there is a bathroom, a hallway, a laundry room and a kitchen right across that area. Ken Duffey said that the house has horizontal demarcation all the way around the two-story part. He said the flare there will be the roofline here, which will be kind of a continuation to tie it together. Ken Duffey said that one could see some of the porch and the second -story sleeping porch, and then there is a bay area about 12 feet back. He said that when one looks at this and then sees the south elevation and the whole thing, it's about ten feet from the corner of the house to the bay. Ken Duffey said that where he is tying on and putting the one-story addition actually meets what the Commission is talking about as far as being the multi -faceted Queen Anne style, in that there is one story, two stories, a bay, and two differently pitched roofs. He said that he could make a good argument that an 18-inch setback would make this busier than it needs to be. Bunting Eubanks said the issue is being able to tell where the historic structure is and where the new addition is. She said that even with a little alcove, if one looks straight on, one won't be able to see the difference; it will look just like an extension of the house. Bunting Eubanks said that is why there is a setback requirement, for a clear delineation between the old structure and the new structure. Swaim said that having all one plane without some change in it would result in the shadow and scale being wrong. She said the house has a very square look because of the porch that extends around. Swaim said that extending it even longer will not do justice to it, although she understands the needs for the planned space on the interior. Greg Duffey asked if the addition could be bumped out a little bit to delineate it. He said he could put a little bay in there. Kuecker said the guidelines say that the addition has to be set back. Ken Duffey said as he understands it, that guideline is there so there are not big block facades on the fronts of buildings. He said he understands and agrees with that. Greg Duffey said that if one is going strictly by the regulation, then this is way beyond the 18-inch setback from the front of the building. Swaim said that is because the front faces Summit. Greg Duffey responded that the front of the building on Court Street is twelve feet beyond where this is at. He said that from a strict regulatory standpoint, that would easily meet that criterion. Kuecker said there is a distinction between the front of the building and the porch. Greg Duffey said that the bay is definitely part of the building, and the bay is well beyond the 18 inches. He said that he did not know if he is to meet a strict regulation or a guideline, and if this is not a strict regulation, which he thinks he has already met, then he would need some sort of guidance on the guideline. Bunting Eubanks said the concern is that an addition is delineated, that it is set back so that one knows where the addition is versus the original structure. Greg Duffey asked if going from two and one-half stories to one story and having a different roof pitch does not delineate this. Bunting Eubanks said that it might affect the status of the property if the addition is not done appropriately. Kuecker confirmed this. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 9 Kuecker read from the guidelines, "An addition at or near the front of an existing building must be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane of the historic building. It must be differentiated by a change of the roof line or by other means." Greg Duffey asked if the guideline says the addition has to be set back at the point of the addition, and Kuecker reiterated that it has to be set back from the front plane of the historic building. Greg Duffey said that makes him believe that this is set back 18 inches from the bay on the side. Bunting Eubanks said the guideline needs to be followed to make sure the status of the building is protected. Ken Duffey agreed that the family would certainly want to maintain that. He said it is a question of interpretation. Michaud asked for clarification regarding the elevations. Ken Duffey stated that they are mislabeled and corrected the error. Bunting Eubanks asked if the interior needs could be met if the addition was one foot deeper but set back 18 inches. Greg Duffey said probably not, because it's so narrow already. He said they probably will require the width to get everything they need. He said that it possibly could be done. Greg Duffey said what is driving this is getting the living quarters all on the first floor Michaud asked if just the bedroom could be made 18 inches narrower. Greg Duffey said that it is already not a very large bedroom. He said that it is 14 by 11. Baldridge said that because of the configuration of the house on Summit Street with the width of the porch and the extension of the bay window, this would meet the guidelines, in his opinion. Michaud agreed that the porch is so much of a statement, with the sleeping porch above it, that a case could be made that it is well within that, but one would have to have a vertical delineation. Greg Duffey asked if possibly just the trim could be done, with all the considerations of the setback from the front, if that would be acceptable. He said they want this to remain a historic house. Baker said there was a property with a similar scenario. She said the house had a bump out, and the solution was to accept that as the front plane, and the owners put in a vertical trim board. Baker said her only concern in saying this could be done here is the question of whether this would negate the property as an individually historic structure. Bunting Eubanks said that might be a question for the State Historical Office. Ken Duffey said that some of the houses he has worked on have a certain style, and this house already has a portico on the north side. He said he has seen houses with a wing wall that comes down with an archway through it into the garden. Ken Duffey asked if something like that would be appropriate here. Swaim replied that she didn't think that would match the style of that era. She said that it would be more of a cottage look than this house would have. Ken Duffey asked if something added to that side of the house in the gardening arena would be acceptable to add some structure attached to the house to delineate that. The consensus of the Commission was that it would not. Michaud asked about the porch. Greg Duffey responded that the new porch would be ten feet by six feet. Bunting Eubanks referred to a closet in the plans and said that if one could swing that back on the side, then one could have the desired bedroom space with the setback. She said that would be going longer for the house but would give the setback with the bedroom size being the same. Bunting Eubanks said that it would be about four feet more out and then the porch. She said it would look the same profile wise but would have the setback. Ken Duffey said something about interior space for sunlight with windows on exterior walls. He said that a blank wall probably wouldn't look as good on that side of the house as the one with windows in it from the exterior. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 10 Swaim asked if the applicant would like to do more brainstorming with staff. Bunting Eubanks said that she would like to know how the status of the house would be affected by a potential decision. Kuecker said that she thought the Commission could get a fairly prompt review from the State offices in order to get an answer to the homeowner as soon as possible. Swaim said that she would have to have a more intellectual understanding of the setback guideline and how it works with the Department of the Interior Standards. Baldridge said that if the Commission is going to submit this to a higher authority, there will need to be precise dimensions of the porch and bay, etc. He said that he would also like to have clarified what the influence of the side yard facing the street is, as opposed to the front of the house. Baldridge asked if, because this is a corner lot, that 18-inch requirement affects any of the two facades or is it just the front of the house. MOTION: Baker moved to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 330 South Summit Street to the Commission's August 141h meeting in order to get clarification regarding what the setback requirements are and how the status of this property as a contributing structure would be affected. Swaim seconded the motion. Ken Duffey asked, should this not change the historic status of the building, the Commission would be okay with the plans. Bunting Eubanks agreed that would be acceptable to her. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Kuecker asked if the Commission wanted to discuss the Summit Street setback issue, regarding the 125 feet from Summit Street guideline that restricts the rear wall to being within 125 feet of Summit Street. She said that if the Commission feels that is something that needs to be upheld, then the application altogether would not be approvable. Swaim asked if that would include the porch. Kuecker said that it refers to the rear wall and would not include the porch. She stated that currently, the rear wall of the house is at about 120 feet from Summit Street. Swaim said that did not concern her, because this is such an enormous lot. Baker agreed. The consensus of the Commission was that the addition would be approvable if the status of the property is not changed by the addition. Greg Duffey asked if there is a way to expedite the process in order to get the project started. He added that the owner will be out of town for the next meeting. Greg Duffey asked if the Commission could approve a motion so that if the State approves this, it would pass through the Commission and he could get started on the project. Swaim said she would be comfortable with staff and the chair making that decision after the State Historic Preservation Office weighs in on the status of the building. MOTION: Swaim moved to reconsider the previous motion to postpone consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 330 South Summit Street. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. MOTION: Swaim moved to allow staff and the Chair to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 330 South Summit Street, with corrected dimensions, subject to staff consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the continued status of the building. If there is any remaining uncertainty, the application will come back to the Commission for a final decision. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JULY 10, 2008. Downing said that in the motion regarding 530 East Washington Street on page two, the word "College" should be changed to "Washington." MOTION: Swaim moved to approve the minutes of the Commission's July 10, 2008 meeting, as amended. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 11 Bunting Eubanks said that she sent a letter to Tim Toomey to thank him for his service on the Commission. Bunting Eubanks said that a grant was received. Kuecker stated that the RFPs were sent out to five different consultants. She said that the deadline to have them back is August 20`f' so that the Commission can review the proposals at the second August meeting and select a consultant. Bunting Eubanks said another issue brought up earlier in the meeting is communication with the community. She said that is important, and, especially if one is not a builder, a lot of the information can be confusing to homeowners. Bunting Eubanks asked what the status is on the streamlining of the new guidelines. Kuecker responded that they are being worked on. Bunting Eubanks suggested using some kind of card with the website address that Commission members could take to their neighborhood meetings. Burford suggested that the Commission put together a pamphlet to list the benefits of historic preservation. She said that what happened on Iowa Avenue could be used as an example. Burford said that Cedar Rapids hardly had any designated, protected areas. She said that it makes a huge difference to the property owner in terms of dealing with restoration and insurance. Downing agreed that homes in Cedar Rapids that had a designation get priority and also get additional funding. Bunting Eubanks said that people need to understand that there is easy access to the regulations. Kuecker said that the letter sent to affected property owners does not list the benefits of historic preservation but mostly just reminds homeowners that they are in a district. Bunting Eubanks said that every homeowner in town gets a water bill, and there is a pamphlet included with that bill that includes information that could be utilized. Trimble said she feels that it is also very important to get this information to contractors. Swaim said that she would be willing to work on something that looks more like a brochure, as opposed to a letter from the City. She suggested mailing it to realtors and contractors as well. Baker suggested getting this information on the agenda of the Board of Realtors meeting. Burford said the information could be included on the assessors' information as well. She said that the designation does not attach to the abstract, which is exactly where it should be. Baker asked if there is a way of finding out whether other historic preservation commissions already have information regarding the benefits of being in a historic district. Swaim said that the benefits cannot always be quantified, but there are many intangible benefits. Bunting Eubanks added that the Preservation Plan has a wonderful introduction detailing what is great about historic properties. Bunting Eubanks asked anyone with ideas regarding how to solve the communication issue to e-mail them to Kuecker. Regarding Manville Heights, Baldridge referred to a document stating that the west boundary is Rocky Shore Drive. Kuecker responded that that was the boundary established in the Historic Preservation Plan as the survey area. She said there may be more than one historic district in that area after the survey is completed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte N xx ; xxxoxo x o r xx OOXXx� f x , in XX pxxx��X� ' N XX ; Xx- x-- X X 0 X X X 0 X x X X X x0 OXXX��XX LLI x x X a X : X X X C.)X X X X X X D i 0 0 x N O r 'xXxoxxX � Xx0 N r r O O 00 O O r r r 0 0 0 0 O e' O r O O r 00 0 F- -- N M N a fW m N a m N N N N w N M N M N M N CO) M M C� Cl) Cl) M M M 0:3 1 > E zmmmow2 3�°0r°' (1)PIPP�