Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-29-2009 Historic Preservation Commission
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, May 28, 2009 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Lobby Conference Room 6:00 p.m. A. Call to Order B. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda C. Certificate of Appropriateness a. 428 S. Governor Street b. 320 College Street D. Consideration of minutes for May 14, 2009 E. Other F. Adjournment Staff Report May 28.2009 Historic Review for 428 S Governor St District: Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Martha Greer, is requesting approval for a proposed project at 428 S. Governor St, a contributing property the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. The applicant is seeking approval to for several projects associated with a kitchen remodel and additional remodeling work. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Foundations 4.5 Siding 4.7 Windows 4.8 Doors 4.9 Porches Staff Comments This house was built in c. 1885-95 and features a complex gable and hip roof with irregular massing. It is currently clad in replacement siding. The house retains its original porch, fenestration, and offset gables. The applicant is proposing several alterations in order to accommodate a kitchen remodel and general renovation of the property. Siding The applicant is proposing to remove the asbestos replacement siding and restore the wood siding that is underneath. Any portions of the siding that are rotted or missing will be replaced with new wood siding to match. The applicant is still deciding if they would like to undertake this portion of the project, but would like to obtain approval at this time, so when they make their decision, they will not have to submit another application. The guidelines encourage the removal of synthetic siding and repairing the historic wood siding and trim. Windows The applicant is proposing to remove the kitchen window on the north wall and fill in the opening with siding to match either the existing asbestos siding or wood if they decide to remove the asbestos.. The applicant is also proposing to remove the window on the east wall and add a bank of three windows to this elevation. The new windows are double -hung, metal -clad, wood windows. The guidelines generally discourage the filling in of windows; however, Staff believes that since this window is not prominent from the street and is not located on the primary portion of the structure, it is not detrimental to the architectural integrity of the house to eliminate the north window. The guidelines also allow for the addition of windows that match the type, proportions, trim, and appearance of the historic windows, provided that the new windows are in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of the building or buildings of similar architectural styles. In Staff's opinion, the bank of three windows is consistent with the architectural style, if the new windows have trim that matches the trim on the other windows. In addition, these windows are on the back elevation of the house, and will not be inconsistent from the window pattern on the rest of the house. Door The applicant is proposing to alter two door openings. The first involves removal of double French doors on the south wall of the kitchen and replacement with a single French door. The second involves removal of an unusable door on the north side of the house. This door is not functional because at some point, the basement stairs were reconfigured and the landing for the door was eliminated. The applicant would like the option of either replacing this door with a window or filling in the opening all together. The French doors that the applicant proposes to replace with a single door were recently installed and are not consistent with the historic character of the house. In Staff's opinion, a single door would be more in keeping with the architectural style than the existing double French doors. The guidelines generally discourage filling in door openings; however, staff believes that since the door on the north side is no longer functional, replacement with a window or filling in the opening would be appropriate. Foundation The applicant is proposing to make some repairs to the existing foundation under the kitchen. Failing mortar joints will be re -tuck pointed below grade. Open joints above grade will also be tuck -pointed. The guidelines encourage repairing historic foundations rather than replacing them. The tuck pointing should be with a soft mortar that is appropriate for the soft historic masonry/block. In Staff's opinion, if the mortar used is of a similar density, color, and joint profile, this project will have no material effect on the property. Porch The applicant is proposing to make some repairs to the front porch footings. They propose to jack up and level the northwest corner of the porch, remove the more modern concrete blocks and replace with blocks that match the existing blocks and foundation more closely. The guidelines encourage the replacement of non -historic materials and replacement with more appropriate materials. In Staff's opinion, the proposed blocks are more historically accurate. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 428 S Governor Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: The trim on bank of three windows match the trim of the existing windows; • The applicant having the option of using a window in place of the north door or filling in the door opening. If a window is used, it shall be a solid wood or metal -clad solid wood double hung window, and The mortar used for tuck -pointing must match the density, color, and joint profile of the existing mortar. Ap 'icati®n for Historic Kiev' w 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 pate submitted ......�••.v.•..• 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: ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgov.org/HPhandbook pr,� Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the secondThursday 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) ❑artha Gr Owner....M.............eer........................................................................ (541-5997 Phone.. ..........319).................................................................................. Address 530 S Governor St ............................................ I................ .................................................................................zip ................... email., mcsgreer@y.ahoo...,com ....................................................... ❑ Contractor................................................................................ Address.......................................................................................... .................................................................................zip ................... Phone.............................................................................................. email................................................................................................ ❑ Consultant................................................................................. Address......................................................................................... .................................................................................zip ................. Phone.............................................................................................. email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ❑ Site plan �] Floor plans E] Building elevations Q Photographs [] Product information ❑ Other............................................................................... If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information 428 S Governor St Address of property ...................................................... I....................... ............................................. .............................................................. Residential Useof property...................................................................................... Date constructed (if known).1910 ........................ Historic Designation ❑ This property is a local historic landmark OR ❑ This property is located in the: ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District E] Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ❑ Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric Project Type [] Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair- or similar) ❑ 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 ❑ Otherr.............................................................................................. Project description 1. We would like to remodel the kitchen in this home. The kitchen is on the back side of this house: The plan for this ...-..... ............................................................................................................................. I................................. remodel includes the removal of a small window on the north side of the kitchen (see photo #1 & 3), the removal of a ...... .................... ............................................... .................. ..... -............................ ...... ... .............................................. window from the east side of the kitchen (see photo #2) and replacement of this window with a set of three windows (see .—.................................................................................................................................................. floor plan and Quote 94928 for more information), and the replacement of double french doors on the south side of the ........ ...... ............... ............................................................... .................. ...... ... ...................... I .................... ... ............ kitchen (see photo #3) with a single french doo....r .. (.see floor plan)I.......................,............................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................... 2. In addition to the kitchen remodel, the foundation underneath the kitchen will be repaired. Please refer to the proposal .............. ............................................... ............... .... .............. .................. .............................. .... .............. I ... I.......I..... by Stumpf Construction for more information. The area for this repair is in photo #1 & # 2. ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... . 3. Repair and restore the front porch. Please refer to the proposal by Stumpf Construction for more information. The ........... .... ... ....... ............. I .................... ............... area for this repair is in photos #4-6.................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................... . . 4. Photos #5-6. We would like to have the option of either removing this door and replacing it with a window (and siding .....................................................................................................I.......I...................... ................, to match existing siding) or removing the door and replacing it with wall and existing siding (leaving the door frame inside ............ ...................................................................................................................................... ............ .................. I .... I...................... Materials to be used Refer to Quote #4928 for the window specifics. --................................................................I.................. . .......... Refer to the Stumpf Construction quote for information regarding the blocks to be used on the front porch: ........I.............................. ................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes 1. Removal of the north side window in the kitchen (back of the house) and replacement with wall. We would like ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... to match the siding to the existing siding. ...........................................-........................................................................................................................................... _......................................... ................... 2. Removal of the east side window in the kitchen and replacement with a bank of three windows. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3. Removal of double -french doors in the kitchen and replacement with a single -french door. ................................................................................................................................................................................I........I.................. These changes will allow for more counter, cabinet and appliance space in the kitchen and will provide more view to ............ .................... .............. ...... .................. ............ .............................................. ............................ ......... .... ............... I................... the backyard. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4. Removal of door on the north side of the house. This door has no function. On the interior. of the house, the door ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ leads onto the basement stairs. There is no landing on these stairs so the door cannot be used as a point of entry. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5. Repair of the front porch footings. Currently, the front porch is partially held up by a stack of concrete blocks. We .......... ................................ ...................................................................... ................................ .......... .......... ...... ........ I......................... would like to remove these concrete blocks and install older blocks that are more appropriate to the historic style of the ..........................................................................................................................................................................................I............. home. See Photos #4-6 for a view of the porch. See Photo #5 for an idea of the replacement block style. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Photo #1 Kitchen windows — east side and north side. Northeast corner of foundation (for repair) Photo #2 Window on east side of kitchen. Photo #3 Double -french doors in kitchen. Inside shot of north window in kitchen Photo #4 Front porch view: On the left and right side of the stairs are the concrete blocks. Photo #5 Front porch view: Example of older blocks to be used to replace concrete blocks. Photo #6 View of north side door. Another view of front porch concrete blocks. Photo #7 Inside view of side door — It is on the right side of the picture (covered in plastic) PROPOSAL Stumpf Construction Services Inc 2975 Hwy 22 E P.O. Box 130 Riverside, Iowa 52327 319- 648-3602 (PHONE), 319- 648 2902 ( FAX) PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: Martha Greer 530 S Governor St Iowa City Ia 52240 PHONE 319-541-5997 We hereby submit labor, material and equipment for the following work at 428 S Governor St. DATE 5-12-09 In the coal room, north east room in the basement, spot tuck -point the failing mortar joints and some of the more open joints around the inside of the remainder of the basement. We also do some open joints above grade on the outside. $2167.00 At the north west corner of the front porch, jack and shore this corner of the porch, remove the newer concrete blocks and install older blocks that are more like the other existing blocks under the porch. $538.00 Payment to be made as follows: Upon completion and receipt of invoice. All material is guaranteed to be as specified. Any alteration Or deviation from above specifications requested by owner involving extra costs will executed as additional work and will becorne an extra charge over and above the proposal. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Our employees are fully covered by Workman's compensation insurance. Submitted by: TERRY STUMPF, PRESIDENT Note: this proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 30 days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL - The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above upon receipt of invoice. Date of acceptance: SIGNATURE IF YOU AGREE TO THIS PROPOSAL, PLEASE SIGN, DATE AND RETURN ONE COPY. Knebel Windows Inc. 700 S. Capitol Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 319 338.1712 - o 0 4nne QUOTE: 4928 CQ Prj #: 4928 System #: 0 Order Date: 5/7/2009 Dealer Prj #: 4928 Ship To: 1 Sold To: 67 Customer ID: KNEBEL WINDOWS INC. CASH CONTRACTOR 700 S. CAPITOL STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 Phone: Fax: Phone: 319 338-1712 Delivery Drop Ship: Instructions: Shipping Instructions: Item Number: 1 Quantity: 1 Total Jamb To Jamb: 76 X 49 1/8 Total Rough Opening: 77 1/16 X 49 518 PO: JOB NAME: LOCATION: Page 1 of 1 QUOTE DETAIL Project Number: 4928 Printed: 517/2009 9:14:30 AM vana uate. yr r icvva Fax: 319 338-1904 Schield Family Brands. Proposes to Furnish Products as Stated Below. All Units, viewed from Exterior. __. __ .......... Weather Shield Exterior Frame Finish -Aluminum Clad Double Hung Tilt Exterior Sash Finish -Aluminum Clad Rectangle Aluminum Paint Finish -Standard Product ID-810 Exterior Color -White Product Arrangement-3 Wide Glass Type-Zo-E Shield 5 Sizing Method -Nominal Glass Size Gas -Inert Nominal Glass Size-20 X 20 Lite Configuration-1 Lite Nominal Glass Width-20 Sash Lift Options -No Finger Pull Rout Nominal Glass Height-20 Screen/Storm-Full Screen Overall Jamb Width-76 Screen/Storm Color -White Jamb Height-49 1/8 Overall R/O Width-77 1/16 R/O Height-49 5/8 Glass Width-19 7/8 Glass Height-19 11/16 Operating Code -Operating Operating Code 2-Operating Operating Code 3-Operating Per Unit: Ext. Price: Unit Price: $1.060.14..._.__ $1.060.14 _.. ._ Net Amount: $1,060.14 State Taxes: $53.01 Cty Taxes: $0.00 Local Taxes: $10.60 Taxes(Other): $0.00 Misc Charges: _.__ ----- —__ _U 00.. Grand Total: $1 .1237 Schield Family Brands CustomQuote SystemTM 2.17.0 Staff Report May 28, 2009 Historic Review for 320 College Street Structure: Iowa City Landmark and National Register property Classification: NA The applicant, Trinity Episcopal Church, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration and addition project at 320 College Street, an Iowa City Landmark and National Register property. The project consists of several modifications in order to accommodate a building expansion. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Foundations 4.4 Mass and Rooflines 4.7 Windows 4.12 Chimneys 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Staff Comments Trinity Episcopal Church is a Gothic Revival style building with vertical board and batten siding. A dentil course is used instead of a freeze board. Several sympathetic additions on the site have allowed the growth of the congregation without detracting from the original structure. The building now creates a quadrangle with a small inner courtyard. Onlythe east wing, the original structure, is listed on the National Register. The building is listed on the National Register for its significant design and building technique as well as its association with Richard Upjohn, who was one of the most famous Gothic Revival architects in the country. The applicant is proposing several alterations in order to expand the usable space in the building. Basement The applicant is proposing to excavate below the existing building to create usable space in a basement. They are planning on removing the existing stone foundation walls, replacing with a reinforced concrete foundation, and using a veneer of the original stone on the exposed portions of the foundation. The guidelines recommend repairing historic foundations rather than replacing them; however, the existing foundation is not being replaced because it is failing. The church wishes to expand in its current location and there is very limited space on the site to allow for expansion. Staff believes that excavating below the building and creating usable space in a basement is an appropriate way to retain the existing use of the building, while minimizing changes to the historic appearance of the building. In Staff's opinion, because the applicant is planning on using the original stone as a veneer for the new foundation, there will be minimal impact to the historic character of the building. Stair tower The applicant is proposing to construct a new stair tower on the east elevation facing Gilbert Street. This stair tower will provide access to the new basement and replace a cellar door with stairs. The stair tower is approximately 15' x 13'. It will be approximately as tall as the existing entryway on the east elevation. The stair tower will be finished to blend in with the existing church, using board and batten siding, dentils, and roofing materials to match. There will be minimal demolition of the existing wall where the stair tower is being added, with the siding and stained glass window remaining on the interior of the stair tower. A stained glass window that was found in the organ chamber will be installed on the south wall of the stair tower. Two new windows that are similar to other existing windows on the building will also be placed in the stair tower, with the intention that stained glass windows will replace them when financially feasible. This will provide natural light into the stairway. The guidelines allow for additions to existing buildings, provided that the addition preserves historic materials and features and is does not diminish the character of the historic structure. In Staff's opinion, although this addition is on the most visible facade of the building, it is not intrusive or overwhelming to the design of the building. It is recommended that additions are distinguishable from the historic building. Staff believes that since the existing exterior wall will still be present inside the stair tower, it will be evident that the stair tower is a later addition. Chimney The applicant is proposing to demolish a brick chimney on the north elevation. According to the applicant this was a later addition and is not original to the building. The applicant also proposes to remove a vent on the north elevation. The siding and roofing materials will be filled in to match existing. The guidelines disallow removal of prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character of the building. In Staff's opinion, this chimney is not important to the architectural character of the building and does not have any significant historic value. Courtyard The configuration of the church creates an internal courtyard. This courtyard is only accessible through portions of the church and its additions. The applicant is proposing to make some changes to portions of the church that are only visible from within the courtyard. In order to do this, they are proposing to remove the glass breezeway on the south elevation, so there is easier access to the courtyard. After the work in the courtyard is finished, the glass breezewaywill be reconstructed as is. Staff believes that this will have minimal effect of the appearance of the building. The work in the courtyard involves a lean-to addition that was added at some point in the past. The applicant would like to remove the lean-to and reconstruct it with a higher roofline and a slightly larger foot print. Currently there is approximately 5-6' of clear space on the interior of this portion of the church, and the applicant would like to raise it to be more usable. The proposed new eaves lines up with the existing eaves of the fellowship hall. New windows will be used on this addition that are the same as the windows used in the parish hall addition during the 1990's. The space will also be expanded slightly to the south. This is to provide access to the insides of the organ to allow for more regular cleaning and maintenance. Some previously closed in window and door spaces will be eliminated, and a new window will be installed. The addition is to be finished with siding, trim details, and roofing to match the existing building The guidelines allow for additions that are compatible with the existing building. In Staff's opinion, this addition is compatible with the existing building. In addition, the addition will not be seen from the street, alley, or neighboring properties. Staff believes it will have minimal impact on the historic integrity of the building Summary In general, Staff believes that the proposed work is compatible with the existing building and retains the historic character of the building. In Staff's opinion, this is a suitable way for a church to maintain its current location in a historic building, while allowing for an expansion in its membership and services. The applicant and the designers have taken care to make sure that the changes are compatible with the architectural and historical integrity of the building. According to the architect, this is a LEED project, so as many materials as possible will be reused or recycled. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 320 College Street as presented in the application. A[ lication for Historic R view 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 f -L f of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Date submitted ...........................�. e...................... Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgoy.org/HPhandbook A Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the secondThursday of each month. During S\ Major review the summer months,the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. 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) ®Trinity Episcopal Church c/o Ann Holton Owner......................................................................................... Phone.�319)337-3333 .................................................................. Address .320 E College St ................................................................. Iowa City . 52240 .................................................................................zip ...........I....... email.holton_ ann@gmail.com .......................................................................... riContractor................................................................................ Address.......................................................................................... .................................................................................zip ................... Phone.............................................................................................. email................................................................................................ Consultant Steve.....Somsky.., ..Neumann......Monson....Arch1.. ............................................................ Address? .21 ..... E College . . .. St . , Suite .....303 ....................................................................... Iowa City 52240 ......................................................................zip ................... Phone.31I..338-7878 ................................................................. ........ ............................................................................................... I. email.ssomsky@.neumannmonson............com. ............................ ..................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: 17, Site plan n Floor plans n Building elevations El Photographs R Product information QOther.............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property.320 College ..S.t .................................................. .................................................................................................................... Use of property Church P P ty...................................................................................... Date constructed (if known).1871 ................................ Historic Designation This property is a local historic landmark OR n This property is located in the: J Brown Street Historic District College Green Historic District East College Street Historic District Longfellow Historic District 0 Summit Street Historic District Woodlawn Historic District D Clark Street Conservation District College Hill Conservation District Dearborn Street Conservation District 0 Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing Noncontributing Q Nonhistoric Project Type E] Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) El Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) E] Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) Q Construction of new building 0 Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance 0 Other.............................................................................................. Z IQI<[ctAI Rill 0 IL cd _ !� tip zCo— r .L'Qi-04i MI H 0000000000000000000000000000000000 FC 9 Z 0 V) ws2 0 070 0 0 U3 i ITT z �-UJO<m z f , = I , T-- 0 Vco "' -PCcn •" 6 co 1 a W Z QQ CL z will!g@ E Z T g z �a a e O Ali ll�. ^ • ^ w w W '4 O Z z ----------- Z g a z a i @ U W N3 U F $ R U I— a G© .�j _6© 4D ui rYnni'��_1m p Ct►�1 0 �'cp h c_a� Ipl ►1��c.iiln�•—+ J .�.. = �Ipl� + 2 I� �I MIME"� ili•k9'F>i i•i•i•i•NI1111mmu�I� i•i•� • B I�!\ �i 7l E1;���i•� 0 i511 0'i OEM r��� .F � II I\it 12 Sk a z CJ Q ' s ➢. gg � � �,y G WSE. g.' ���j3�� i i� F � Q � 7 S�* QL� 7 Q o u � 1x 2o f O w D-a Eass a ��3og gEg Z Q9'SLt � € ® a W W k9 / � R ] 000 ART e s U g$ 93RIN g L s w e I-W UQ cc d RE ad8 ot 7 Q - MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2009 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, Carl Hirschman, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Kading 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 430 N. Van Buren Street. Kuecker stated that the owner of the property has withdrawn this application. 13 S. Linn Street. Kuecker stated that the intent of this project is to make the property ADA accessible. She showed a photograph of the house and stated that it is a local landmark currently serving as a commercial building. Kuecker said the applicant would like to add a ramp and would raise grade about one foot. She said it would be a fairly small ramp. Kuecker said it would start farther back and would be fairly difficult to see from the street. She said the applicant would also like to add a door for access. Kuecker said the ramp would be constructed of wood. She said the door would be a simple, steel, fire - rated door used for comnmercial structures. Kuecker said that staff feels this is an appropriate way to address the ADA accessibility of the property without being detrimental to the most visible facades of the property. She said that in general, the guidelines recommend not adding new openings to a building. Kuecker said that in this case, since it won't be seen from the street, staff feels it is fine. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of the application as proposed, with the condition that any handrail, if needed, is just a simple, black handrail. Kading, the owner of the property, said that there are two buildings right next to each other. He said that the way the grade is set up, this will ramp up less than a foot with a somewhat even continuance to the back, so both these buildings will be handicapped accessible. He said that he is working with the neighboring property owner on some issues. He said that this should allow him to make the space a lot more usable and will not affect much externally. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 13 South Linn Street as proposed, with the staff recommendation that if there needs to be a handrail that it be a simple black metal handrail. Trimble seconded the motion. Ponto said that this is a really good way to make something handicapped accessible while not changing anything noticeable in the front. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim absent). Historic Preservation Commission May 14, 2009 Page 2 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 13, 2009. MOTION: Downing moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's April 13, 2009 meeting, as written. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim absent). OTHER: Bunting Eubanks said that one of the City Council members asked about how to reconcile the movement of energy efficiency with historic preservation. Bunting Eubanks suggested the Commission come up with a list of ideas to include on the website and possibly in the handbook. Bunting Eubanks said that one concern was that solar panels are only allowed on the side of a building not facing the street within the guidelines. She said the City Council member was also concerned with adding a bump out area to add insulation to the exterior of a house. Bunting Eubanks suggested this could cause water damage. Kuecker said that it would also cover trim and potentially historic features. Kuecker said one council member stated that adding insulation could bump the exterior of a house out a couple of inches and asked how that is detrimental to the historic character of the building. She said there are things that can be done to a house in the name of energy efficiency that are permitted under the guidelines. Kuecker said that the Commission could brainstorm ideas to come up with a list. She said there might be things that are currently not allowed in the guidelines that the Commission might want to consider allowing, since the guidelines are in the process of being rewritten. Bunting Eubanks said that new types of energy efficient materials are being developed, including materials like photo -voltaic paint that captures solar energy. Downing mentioned insulating attics. Bunting Eubanks asked if that ever caused water damage. Downing said that that isn't usually an issue. Baldridge said that Jim Throgmorton with the University is interested in green issues and might be willing to share his expertise. Downing said that one important factor is upgrading the mechanical systems of a house. He said that a lot of the older houses have boilers that are ancient and run at 40% efficiency. Bunting Eubanks said that an article in a preservation magazine discussed how when one removes a porch and there are cracks in the wall, the cracks could be filled with spray in foam insulation before the porch is rebuilt. She said the Commission could make those suggestions part of its recommendations when it issues certificates. Bunting Eubanks said that when an owner fixes up his house gradually, he deals with a lot of those problems. Hirschman said that he did his entire house by blowing in insulation from the interior. He added that it greatly reduced his utility bill. Hirschman said that it cost him around $8,000. He said that there was a tax rebate and a State of Iowa property rehabilitation tax credit available. Bunting Eubanks said there was a great article on windows also. Hirschman asked if storm windows had to come before the Commission. Kuecker confirmed that storm windows did not need to come before the Commission He said that at this point one can get a storm window that is essentially like putting on a double pane for much less cost. Bunting Eubanks said that a historic preservation commission in Colorado came out with a pamphlet describing different things that could be done. She said she was thinking more along the lines of just adding bullet points to the website. Michaud said that those bullet points could then refer people to technical websites. Bunting Eubanks said that a second idea is what the Commission should amend the guidelines to include. The Commission discussed the use of recycled materials and the new tax benefits available. Bunting Historic Preservation Commission May 14, 2009 Page 3 Eubanks suggested having a section entitled "The Green Side of Historic Preservation," with a link to the window page. She asked people to e-mail further ideas to Kuecker. Trimble said that when people come to the Commission and complain about energy efficiency, it almost always involves windows. Bunting Eubanks said that the statement on windows says that windows might not actually be the problem, but it could be all the cracks in the building. Trimble :said that people seem to think that vinyl windows work better than they do, but that has not been her experience. Ponto said that Tim Toomey had a good idea in that especially the old double hung windows with the weights have a space that cannot be insulated. Ponto stated that Toomey had a way of using a PVC pipe that the weight would be inside and then putting insulation around that. Ponto said there are ways to insulate an old double hung window. Baker said that Downing's point might be the best one to make, in that greenest thing for one to do is to fix what he's got. Bunting Eubanks said that is also the least expensive. She said there is a lot of debate about how much it costs to do historic preservation. Bunting Eubanks said that if an owner is able to fix what he has, then he doesn't have to buy anything new. Kuecker asked if there are green products or technologies that the Commission would like to have in the guidelines. Specifically, she asked if the Commission wanted to allow solar panels on prominent street elevations. Kuecker said the guidelines currently state that it is not recommended to install atennas, vents, solar collectors, skylights, or other mechanical devices on a prominent street elevation. Downing said that not recommended is soft language to begin with. Ponto said the Commission might want to make some sort of blanket concession that as technology changes, the Commission will review new materials. He said the Commission could ask that anyone planning something for the exterior of a house should come before the Commission to discuss it, and the Commission will make every effort to accommodate the homeowner within the guidelines. Bunting Eubanks said she thinks that solar panels will probably be outdated in 20 years, to be replaced by the paint that uses solar energy. Downing said that solar panels are not very efficient, because such a large amount is needed to generate sufficient energy. Kuecker said that in Dubuque, the City plans to put photo -voltaic shingles on the City Hall. She said the Commission might want to discuss something like that before it is included in an application. Downing said that the shingles look like ordinary black shingles but slightly shiny. Downing said that he feels that in the next 20 years the ideas of individuals collecting solar energy in their own home will give way to larger utility companies collecting solar energy on a larger scale. Bunting Eubanks said the idea is whether the Commission wants to give individuals the option to choose that if they want to. Michaud asked how often the guidelines are rewritten. Kuecker said they were written in 2000 and are being rewritten in 2009. Michaud said that including a statement, that says as new materials and technologies become available the Commission will review them. Bunting Eubanks said the Commission members should think about the subject and realize that this is a criticism of the Commission. Ponto stated that besides windows, what people most criticize the Commission for is its stance on vinyl siding and the insulation underneath. Regarding the use of green products, Downing said that the LEED rating system discourages vinyl in almost every way. Kuecker agreed that vinyl is one of the least green products available, partly because of the production process and the contaminants released in the process. Downing added that vinyl is very hard to recycle. Bunting Eubanks said the Commission could come up with a more concise list. She asked Commission members to e-mail them to staff and the other Commission members. Historic Preservation Commission May 14, 2009 Page 4 Baldridge asked about providing some sort of open-ended invitation in that building materials and technology are constantly changing, and if a homeowner has an idea of what they want to do on their house, they should feel free to bring that idea to the Commission, which will try to work with them on it. He said that sounds more user-friendly. Bunting Eubanks said that one of the big problems is that there are salesmen out there who want to bring up new products and promise things about them that haven't been tested. She said that she has seen that before with roofing materials in particular. Michaud said that rather than suggest that the Commission will amend its guidelines, the Commission could state that it will be happy to do a product review. Ponto said that another green thing about historic neighborhoods is that there are a lot of mature trees that provide shade and therefore energy savings. He said that is one benefit over a new subdivision. Kuecker said that Helen Burford wanted her to remind everyone of the Parade of Historic Homes on Sunday. Kuecker said there are four historic homes and one new home with the entire interior made of historic materials. Michaud said that on Tuesday there was an article about a proposed historic district in New York that has been under review for two years. She said there are thousands of buildings there, and it has become a very protracted process. Michaud said that in preface, many of the buildings were altered or demolished. Michaud asked if, when there is a proposed district, there is a way to freeze demolition permits until the district is voted on. Kuecker said that it is already in the zoning code that when City Council sets its public hearing, it puts a freeze on the area so that anything that is going to happen needs to meet the new regulations, even if it is just being reviewed. She said she believes the period is !90 days from the point at which the City Council sets the public hearing. Kuecker said that is happening now on the Northside in that she is getting applications for projects there. She said people want to do work now, but because City Council has not completed all of its votes, a homeowner still has to go through the review process until the district is approved or denied. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte 0 U) N_ O v O Im m ago O N CIO N C L � CL a O N ON xxxxxxxoxx cn xoxxxxxoxx M xxxxD-XXxx N QXXXxxxXXX co xxxx ; xxxxx E N LU M M M M M M M M M M E zm � � 2 cc mCW2�a°c3nF=� C Y C E