The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-13-2009 Historic Preservation CommissionIowa City Historic Preservation Commission %) --I- L I il 1111 Thursday, August 13, 2aO n• P• �. c 6:00 p.m. c f� I Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall F r ovwam/rPC-Std�—formaoo r; IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, August 13, 2009 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) Consent Agenda 1. 506 N Linn Street 2. 411 N Linn Street 3. 520 N Gilbert Street D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 221 Fairchild Street 2. 1030 E College Street 3. 604 Grant Street 4. 614 N Johnson Street E) Consideration of minutes for July 9, 2009 F) Other G) Adjournment Staff Report August 13, 2009 Historic Review for 506 N Linn Street District: Northside Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Bill Eckhardt, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 506 N Linn Street, a contributing property the Northside Historic District. He is seeking approval to alter the roofline on the breezeway connecting the garage to the house Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 0 Iowa Ouyl flistonc P?rsenation Guidelines for�4lterations 4.4 Mass and Rooflines Staff Comments This two story gable roofed house from the 1890s is almost hidden behind the broad, heavy porch that was added c. 1930. This porch, with its massive columns, becomes the dominant design feature. While this greatly alters the original appearance of the house, it is not intrusive in the neighborhood because of the large number of houses with porches of similar size and style. The applicant has changed the roof slope over the breezeway connecting the garage to the house. The roof was originally flat and was causing drainage problems. The new roof matches the pitch of the garage roof. The shingles of the new roof match the singles on the rest of the house. This work was completed without a permit earlier this year during the time while the City Council was considering the Northside Historic District. The guidelines generally recommend preserving the original roof pitches, however the Commission has made accommodations in the past for drainage problems. In Staff's opinion, the roof as constructed is compatible with the existing house and garage and is an appropriate alteration for the drainage problem Recommendedffotion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 506 N Linn Street as built Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City For Staff Use: Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation o� Date submitted ....... ..'.SJ......................................... of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at www. Certificate of Appropriateness icgov.org/HPhandbook. ❑ Major review Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. ❑ Intermediate review During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. ❑ Minor review Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Owner ...W..�....�....... 4-kkQt..(. A._�........ Phone........... ��...3....K... ....... ................ I............. AA�� Address............. �?':..../V....... .i. n.. 1.............................. email................................................................................................ ❑ Contractor................................................................................ Address.......................................................................................... ......................................................................................................... Phone.............................................................................................. email................................................................................................. ❑ Consultant................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... ................................................... :............................. .... .................... Phone............................................................................................... ......................................................................................................... email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ❑ Site plan ❑ Floor plans ❑ Building elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product information ❑ Other.............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property ........?....... .�.....�u•y 1, . . ............ 1�-......,M414-6.............. Use of property ........ ,%............................................... Date constructed (if known) ..... %J�v...................... Historic Designation ❑ This property is a local historic landmark OR ❑ This property is located in the: V1 ID'e S� ❑ Brown Street Historic District �-1 hh " r ❑ 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 ❑ Lucas -Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric 11 W Project Type Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) ❑ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) ❑ Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) ❑ Construction'of.new building ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not . change its appearance ❑ Other.............................................................................................. Project scription ` .. ��.' ... a.... ..... .�- ..��r.. ..................... ,....••d••+��T+.... .. .. ...... . ....... M4.l...AV ....��+�Y{I. .......fp ..... .`'. ..................................... .j........................ 1 .............. ...`` a..> ............ .. ... ,..,.....,.. .............:.... t.. mow.... ... .............I ...1RM.... { .. ..... .Q'K,1..e...... 0 ....... ........................................................................................................................................... ......... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. I............................. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............. ......................... ...................................................................................... :......................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I.................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Materials to be used w.. ................... PAPA ................................................. 4.. ,.. ,................................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........... ................................................................................................................. ............................... ..................................................................... I.................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exteriorsapp�earap� ee changes :,eft T.11!R....."""""""'....................... .................Gt�4 a+....................�•....'................... ..,... ....., -,. -............................................................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ .............. ......................................................................................................................................................................... I.................... ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65 •, � `� .. ..�; ;. ` ,;x, �L� -Y: •��s !� b J, ; f + - r, Staff Report August 13, 2009 Historic Review for 411 N Linn Street District: Northside Historic District Classification: Key -Contributing The applicants, Lance and Nicole Slabach, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 411 N Linn Street, a key contributing property the Northside Historic District. They are seeking approval to repair/reconstruct the front porch. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 0 Iowa City Historic P7eseruaai ,v Giridelanes f r,4lterations 4.9 Porches Staff Comments This two-story hip roof house is a good example of turn of the century residential design. It is basically an elongated rectangle to which various decorative details have been added. A projecting side gable wing with chamfered corners creates a two-story bay. Decorative millwork brackets with pendants embellish these corners. A gable with decorative shingles is centered on the facade, while a wrap -around porch with slender classical columns completes the design. Although this house does not represent a specific style, it is a good mix of details from several styles. The applicant is proposing to make several repairs and replacement to the front porch. This includes temporarily supporting the roof; removing columns, balustrade, flooring, and lattice work; reinforcing the floor framing and reattaching it to the structural supports; installing tongue and groove vertical grain flooring; raising the roof to its pre -deteriorated position; reinstalling the balustrade with any deteriorated balusters replaced with matching balusters; installing new 6-8" wood columns that are similar to the existing; repairing the soffits; replacing the trim; replacing the lattice work; and coating the metal roof. The guidelines recommend repairing historic porches and conserving as much of the historic material as possible. The guidelines also recommend replacing badly deteriorated components with new ones that match the historic components in design and material. In Staff's opinion, the repairs and replacements proposed by the applicant meet all the guidelines and will improve the appearance of this house. RecommendedMotiOn Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 411 N Linn Street as presented in the application. Sent By: HP LaserJet 3100; 31965654B6; Jul-21-09 11:52AM; Page 1/2 Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic laiidrnarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City For Staff Use: i 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 bar..e submitted .......... ..... I.........�............... Hondbook, which Is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect www3egov.orgIMPhandbook PK_ Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the secondThursday of each month. During Vll�, Major review the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourthThursday Applications LJ Intermediate review are due in the PCD Office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. Q Minor review See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Applicant Information (Please check prim4ry contact person) owner Lance.& Nichole Slabach .......... ........................................................ Phone 11 g.-325-9987............. Address 32813-Hwy #1SW Iowa City, IA 52240 ... .... ............... ...... - ............................................... ...zip ..... I............. email rmbrent (S@aol......c om ............... ❑ Contractor Rues Gan-ett with Garrett Construction ..............I"......, Address .Rohret Road Iowa City 52240 ...................................................,......................... zip........- ........ Phone 319-663-3300 emaiiAKcRn@natins.net ❑ Consultant................................................................................. Address......................................................................... .... ..... ............. .... I ....... •-........... .............................. ....zip..............,.... Phone.................................................................................. email.................................... . .......................................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ❑ Site plan © Floor plans Building elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product information ❑ Other.............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs, If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application - Property Information Address of property 411 North,Linn Street Iowa City Useof propertyrental..................................................................... Date constructed (if known) hgpmg as soon aS approved Historic Designation © This property is a local historic landmark 8R Q This property is located in the: ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ last 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 Governort ucas Street Conservation DO Mct i hin the4*4:tphis5r property is cla3AWSp 0 Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric Project Type ❑ Alteration of an existing building (le. siding and window replacement. skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) ❑ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) © Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance ❑ Other..................................................................................... Sent By: HP LaserJet 3100; 3196565486; Jul-21-09 11:53AM; Page 2/2 Project description Restoring Existing Porch: Temporarily support the roof, remove all of the posts, railings, flooring, and lattice work, ..............................................................................•---.................................. Reinforce the floor framing and re -attach the existing framing to the bri ck under the porch ................................................................ .... •............................ Jack up the roof to where It is supposed to be ................................-••-----...............................................................--------_.... Install tongue and groove vertical grain fir flooring that has been sealed on the top, back and sides prior to installation. ............................................................................................................................... Sealing the entire surface ensures that the floor paint will last a lot longer. ....--••...........................................................................---•-----................. Stltp the balusters and handrails of lead paint .................................................................................................................................... Make 6 new balusters to match the existing ones Install 6- 8" round9outhern Yellow pine wood Columns similar to the originals. . ...... ............. .............-.«....................................................................... _. ...........................,.....................................................,................................ Prime the beluslll columns, and railings before assembly and installation .................... ..................... .......... ........... ,.............. ......................................................... ............................................................. ........................... Install the balustwo, railings, and columns ................................................................................................................................ Repair the soffit boards on the South side Nail up all of the trim on the porch that needs it Clean out the internal gutters .. .. ..... . ...................................................... . .... ..•.............................. ........ A ................. I......... Coat the porch roof with silver tin roof coating ........................................................................................................................... Install white fiberglass lattice (much more durable than plastic). Owner- Paint baluster, floor, columns once installed. Materials to be used tongue and groove vertical grain fir flooring, ..----•............................................... .......-----------..------•--....................................................................---..................................................................._......_.............. paint -beige and navy to match trim ....... .... I ................. ............ �................................................................................................. ............. ................................ .......................... I .................. ........ E3- 8" round Southern Yellow Pine wood columns similar to the originals. ........................................................................ ................................... I......... original balusters a railings .................................................................... approx, 6 new matching balusters made on a lathe ...................................................................................................................................................... silver tin roof coating Exterior appearance changes look the same only newer Alf L 0 ,; __ _ � , ,� � s,� � Via, _. �,,, aim';' .a'iy� � .., �,,."�':>". ��" . . +�^ o � R � / r, p �� ,, a i � i � _ � i s t � � _ ,'__ "r � � �. ,�� A � �, � �� ,�� _,x�-'s�+�! ��u a.: � z axe �.�i � � _ ,� � _5.[ _ � \`l <` � \ �� .. � -_.9 � �_.`� ,- ,� --, fr.._ i r � r i .. ,. - _ i � � sw _� 4 Staff Report Historic Review for 520 N Gilbert Street District: Northside Historic District Classification: Contributing August 13, 2009 The applicant, Carole Ann Eldeen, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 520 N Gilbert Street, a contributing propertythe Northside Historic District. She is seeking approval to alter the roofline on the rear of the property Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 0 Iowa City Histonc P7esermtion Guidelines forfllterations 4.4 Mass and Rooflines Staff Comments This brick house was constructed in c. 1865 and is likely associated with Gilbert Street's early history as the urban route of the military highway. A central door is flanked by two windows and atop the roof each gable end sports a crown chimney. Projecting brickwork over the facade windows crates the appearance of curved window hoods. The house is likely the work of master mason, HenrySeevogel. The applicant is proposing to alter the roofline above the kitchen on the rear of the property. The applicant is proposing to raise the roof by 16-18" in the corner and then slope the roof away from the rest of the structure. The new roof will be finished with rolled asphalt roofing. The guidelines generally encourage the preservation of the original roof pitches; however, the Commission has made accommodations in the past for drainage problems. In Staff's opinion, this seems like a suitable alteration and the visual impact of the change will be minimal. Recommended Moai?n Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 520 N Gilbert Street as presented in the application. Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City For Staff Use: Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation Date submitted .... ......................... of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at www. IX' Certificate of Appropriateness icgov.org/HPhandbook. V Major review Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. ❑ Intermediate review During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. ❑ Minor review Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) Owner ...bg.o. ..... W..... CL�...... Phone.....S.a...... .� T...: qPq ........................ Address ... P�% ....... .............!P!5C-C>:5.....�� t ..................... email................................................................................................. Contractor ...t ..... ....... 4EEA Address.......................................................................................... ........................................................... . Phone.... .....:—� i.�?..................... email................................................................................................ � ...�........i,- Consultant ............................... .............. Address..........1�.....�..'�!.r�.................................. ......................................................................................................... Phone.............. :'.�...�........................... `t.................... ......................................................................................................... email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Site plan ❑ Floor plans ❑ Building elevations photographs ❑ Product information ❑ Other.............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property .................................................. "............... .................................. ..................... 1L Useof property .................-L-.......................................... Date constructed (if known)............................................................... 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 ❑ LLkcas-G verngr Street Conservation District � Iar,� Within the district, this property is classified as: ,1 Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric Project Type Iteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) ❑ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) ❑ Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not . change its appearance ❑ Other.............................................................................................. Project �� ______.��=___.��&8��--'��`--''*'��--`»-'`'"'=�"---��---'~~~~---� _ ---' ��---.��y��x�»+��=��---.:~°��~=°wm--. -.......... ...................................................................................................................... .......................... ............................................................. ...................... ....................................... ��............................... ----------------------------------------------------------------'-------' --------------_'--'--'--'--------------^-.----------'---'----------_'----------' --.................................................... ....................................... ........................ ............................................ ............................................. ........................... ...................................... ------'- ------'------.------' -^---'----~-~---''-^'-''-^-^'-~^~-^-~'~^-^~-^---~'-^''-^---~'-^'-^'-~-~-~''-'-~----' --^-^'------'-~--'~-~^-^'-^-^''-''-^--^~'~—^-----^''-'^-`-'-~'----'---^---'---- ^-^----~-----^-^-^~--~-~-~-^-^'-^'------~^-'-'~-~'-^'-^--'^'-~^-'-------~- Materialsto@e used Exterior appearance changes ppdxmmpHxnd000mAnp,a s. `�.. �� s: i }° �` � � �r y �', �a Staff Report August 13, 2009 Historic Review for 221 Fairchild Street District: Northside Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Mark Hohkamp, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 221 Fairchild Street, a contributing propertythe Northside Historic District. He is seeking approval to add a dormer on the rear of the property. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 0 Iowa City historic Pmreruation Griia'elnes forfllterations 4.4 Mass and Rooflines Staff Comments This two-story frame house from around 1900 is a transitional design between Queen Ann and American Foursquare. The roof is rather steeply pitched, the dormer too tall, and the side gable with cornice returns too elaborate for a Four Square. The house suffers from the loss of the original full width front porch. The applicant is proposing the addition of a dormer to the west elevation near the rear of the house. The dormer is to add headroom for the stairs leading to the attic. The dormer will be clad in 4" reveal fiber cement board lap siding to blend in with the existing siding. The roof is of the same pitch as the existing dormer and has the same cornice returns The guidelines allows for the addition of dormers provided the new dormers do not significantly alter the character of the building. Dormers also must be of a compatible proportion and location. In Staff's opinion, the proposed dormer is compatible with the Queen Anne features of the house and will not detract from the character of the building Recommena'ea'Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 221 Fairchild Street as presented in the application. 35(, �D �Vy 5 CV,Isi'wA\ Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City For Staff Use: 'T �G, Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation Date submitted ............`......... .:.........1................. of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at www. Certificate of Appropriateness icgov.org/HPhandbook JCS( Major review Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. ❑ Intermediate review During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. ❑ Minor review Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) X Owner.A"YA&K...x`,CkTKA1.!�l:P.. Phone.... ,I... F9Y..CV..`s�...►....................................... Address .BD. iX.....nvy.................................... ...... r./�� 4...... "Zz ` ' .............. email...M.4. a..CA ❑ Contractor ..,1� re ��....-�!!.M!�.j ........... Address.......................................................................................... Phone.............................................................................................. email....:........................................................................................... ❑ Consultant................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... Phone.............................................................................................. ........................................................................................................ email............................................................................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ). Site plan 114 Floor plans X Building elevations $ Photographs ❑ Product information ❑ Other.............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property ..........�.1...... tk A--,b......,elT,.. r�..�i......... ..... .,..!4........................................................ Use of ro er e!�'�.!;!, 914 Pi', Date constructed (if known) . [ .... O ............................... 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 L,ycas-Govern Street C nservation District t�v �s �e i in t e district, this property is classified as: Q 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) ❑ Constructionof_new building ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not . change its appearance 0 Other.............................................................................................. Project description ---.�Nm%r .��.--��[��-.��--.��-.��-.��.��-��.�:r��.�..-��--'��s��..-..�.`��. ��&�x�� *#��*�^ 'xae--�r�,�*er��e��v.��w°--. -- --. ___w��-��N��^__----------------------_-----------'_._---------------------. ............. ...................... .................................................................. ....................................................... -'---.'-------_---' ..........................................._---.-.---'_~-.---.--_---__----_-.-_---_---------.--------' ... ............................... ........................................................... .................................................................................... .............................. ................................. -------------------------------------------------'---------------------' ---------------------'---------------------------------------------' ........................................ ......................................................................... .......... ................................................................... ........................................ .... -' .....................................---_-'_---__----_-_--_--'--_---'----'----.--------.----'--'--' ........................................................_ ....................................._.......................... -''-~'~--'-~-^`-~`''^-~-'~''-`-'--^'-^-''~-~-~-~'~-^-^^-'~'----~--'--'''---^'- -^---^-----~'-~'-^--'-^'-~'-~-'--~--^'-~~--''~-'--^^~'^'-^'-~-~----~------' ........................................ .................... ...................................................................... .................. .................................................... Materials to be used If ��---n�e�s-w�--��xecc�=�--_'-----_-------'-_.__---------------. ��.......................................................... ............................... --------'_-_-----_----_-~._-_--_------._-------'--------------.--------.--- ----'-------___-~---.----_'---_---_-_----------------.---------'-----'--- --_--._------ -.--' --------`-------. ----'_---_--_----._--'---------._-----__-_---_--'_._._--___------------ '--~'^^-^--''^-'~-'^-'^'---~''-'~^~'-~^~^~~~~'^-^--~'`-^--'--^''^~'--~-^--~'^^'~-'~' '~-^'--'~-^`~^`-^—'^^''^-'^~'~~-'-'-^^~'~-'~--~'~-'~'~^-~^~^^'-'--''--'--^'-^-~'-~-~-- Extmrior appearance changes �� __^��~.��__��8�__~��k__.. -��m--..8��&.&^------------------ ---------------------~--.-.----~.----------------------------^-----..~------------..-. �� ............................._------___.~.-_----'--.---_--_-----_--'----_---..... '~''^'-'-^^^'~'--~'--''~'^^~^-^^^~~~'~~^^^-^~'~^-^^''~--~''~~^`~'^-^-~'-~'--~^-------'- `'^''^-^'--^-~^'~~---~-~~'^~-'-~^'~^'-~'~'-~'~~~~''-^'--^-'^'-'-'''^--'~-^'''—'--^--'~- ..-..-~-.-~...-..--~..~--......''.'-~..-~.~.....~..-.--.-.---.'..-.-..-~--...~.-~'~- ..-..~....-..~.._...-.-...'..~.~~.~....,~'--.~.'~..-.-~-..-..~.'.~..''.~.-..~-~--~~'.~.-.-~ ._--.-~-...'~.-'-..~..'~-.....,..'...~~..-~.'_.~.-.-..-.~~.....'~..'~-'.~-.-..'...-.--.. -~^'~~-'~'-''-'^-^^-'—~-^^~^^~-'~'~^'^''-^^'--^~^'—^-'~^''-'~`^^^^~~--'~'-^'-^-~--~^'-^'' .............-....-'---''-~---.-.....~~-...--~~-.--.--.-'.-.~.-~-.--'-.---'-.-.._--.-~. ..-~-..-_----~~.-~.---..-..-.-~._-.-~-~.-..-.--..~.-.-.~--'_.--.__---.-.-~- pnoadmoHpHxndooumaop.p65 on on { rA . .w I �y��lp ?: /AffilL S r �y a' �rp�g:�p• .�.. ayy y N� fi IN3M 133US al M]Mltl! LZZ V J\ 23'-gA" m Q §1 U)on o s z 2.6 Z a 0 0 J LL 0 Z 0 V W U) 0 5' 221 FAIRCHIL ST. 0 u� N a y Y a y 4 CAR ct a GARAGE �, Staff Report August 13, 2009 Historic Review for 1030 E College Street District: East College Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Michelle Scherer, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration/ demolition project at 1030 E. College Street, a contributing property the East College Street Historic District. She is seeking approval to replace the standing seam metal roof and remove a chimney Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 0 Iowa City Historic Pmseruxtion Guidelines forfllterations 4.4 Mass and Rooflines 4.12 Chimneys 7. 0 Iowa City Historic Pmrenaat n Guidelines forDemo�tion Staff Comments This two story wood frame house was constructed in 1900. The house has been altered with replacement siding, a new porch, and a rear addition. The front gable has been filled in with glass and a large sash window. This is a marginally contributing house to the district. The applicant is proposing to remove the standing seam metal roof and replace with a new standing seam metal roof of similar appearance. The applicant is also proposing the removal of a deteriorating chimney. The guidelines recommend using similar materials when replacing deteriorating building elements. In Staff's opinion, provided the new standing seam metal roof replicated the existing metal roof, there will be minimal impact on the appearance of the house. In regards to the chimney, the guidelines disallow removing prominent chimneys that are important to the architectural character of the building. However, the guidelines also recommend removing alterations that are not historic and those portions that are structurally unsound. According to the applicant, the existing chimney was a later addition and was constructed of bricks that were too heavy for the below roof structure. In Staff's opinion, the chimney is not a character -defining feature of this house and the removal will have minimal impact on the appearance of the house Recommendea'Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1030 E. College Street as presented in the application, with the condition that the standing seam metal roof retain the appearance of the existing standing seam metal roof. 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 Date submitted .......L.. �'�( �-0 ..................................... of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook A Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the secondThursday of each month. During 0 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) 110 Owner . ...... ......... Phon0,3..�. .. $. ..7...�.9.. `.©.......................... .. .... 5 Address ....i~?.. .Q........GQ.4(e:5E.....,?4. ........................ - 5�z4P ....� nw N...Cloy..........................................zip................... email.....�T+.I.G.QjfJ.i.Q E] ContractorJ..`�15....3.v`s,..E'.�er,'l!'>��x� Address.......................................................................................... ...............................�.....6�. .......................I ........... zip .................:. Phon�, R).... �. ..-..3.L� ...................................... email..................................`......j....................................................... ® Consultant ..11V Address .-EC ,�.I.R�'.w....,1-��}}gw1 ..... Phone.............................................................................................. email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: 13 Site plan Floor plans E] B ilding elevations Photographs Product information nOther .............................................................................. 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 + �l Address of property... 'Q.3...Q...F...... 6...!.. .......... �� G! ��......................... ..... I...................... ��&.t iUse of property.........K......................... Date constructed (if known)...... . .................................... Historic Designation nThis property is a local historic landmark R ff/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 Q Woodlawn Historic District El Clark Street Conservation District College Hill Conservation District Dearborn Street Conservation District Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Nontributing ncontributing Q Nonhistoric Project Type Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) n Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) Construction of new building Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance Other.............................................................................................. Project description ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ....................................................... 'S 'Av .... 5. ............................................ ................................................................... ................... ...... ."4,.m fzf�. ............................................................ I ............................................................................................... ... ..................................... ..................... ................................................................. ........ i ..... ac-.�f, - .................................................................................................................................... .............................................. ............................. ..................................... ............ I ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................ I .................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................. I ......................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................... ...................................... I ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Materials to be used .............. ............... 5..) ... sle.%,v .......... . W,�. �, CCUA .......... ................................................................ .............................. ............................................................................................................. ....................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................. I ............................. .................................... ................................................................................................................... ....... I ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes .............. &?!-1.e ....... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ...................................... I ..... I ............................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................. ........... ................................................................................................................................... +�tlii" ��p abµ.s.{Y, �. •,T �.,f,, y u k r f�. _ v,•• AW ' tea. �---F fj �• t,. _ � 4 Staff Report Historic Review for 604 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing August 13, 2009 The applicant, Heidi Anderson, is requesting approval for a proposed addition and new construction project at 604 Grant Street, a contributing propertythe Northside Historic District. She is seeking approval to construct a new 18' x 22' garage. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 6. 0 Iowa City Historic P7eserzaat ,v Guidelines forA,ew Construction 6.2 New Outbuildings Staff Comments This two-story house with gable roof is a simple example of the Colonial Revival style. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 18' x 22' garage to the northeast of the existing house. The new garage will be clad in fiber cement board siding. The roof will be asphalt shingles. The windows will be metal clad wood to match those on the house that were previously approved by the Commission. The window and door openings are to be trimmed to match the trim on the house windows and doors The guidelines recommend placing new garages to the rear of the primary building, constructing garages that are subordinate in size and ornamentation to the primary structure, and constructing garages that reflect the style of the primary structure. In Staff's opinion, this garage is designed to be compatible with the existing house. The roof slope reflects the roof slope of the house. Although visible from the street, the garage is set back 23' from the front facade of the existing house and is subordinate to the house. Staff does feel that the band board shown on the drawing is not an appropriate detail for a Colonial style garage. Staff also feels that by removing the band board, the garage will not appear as tall. Recommende,lAot;ow Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 604 Grant Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: The garage door and entry doors being subject to staff approval; and The removal of the band board from the proposed design. Jul 29 09 04:22p Application for Historic Review exterior of historic landmarks or properties Application for alterations to the located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City For Staff Use: nn Date submitted ........4.:- o c1 "' Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation Ll Certificate of No Material Effect can be found in the Iowa City Handbopok,which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online oric Preservation at Q5--Certificate of Appropriateness www.fcgov.orglWhandbook Cy -Major review Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the secondThursday of each month. During 0 Intermediate review the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourthThursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. ❑ Minor review See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) ME I� r Q ..1..1,��..1.......i..l n.... rs..? ►�................. Owner ""' . ? �.� �.......... _... Phone..........J. E.'................_� �............ Address ...... �......� r..4.r? l........ S.. V :awt.........4i..it, r...... 'p.`>:�......... .S ................ email .................................................... � ..........r....._.. 0 Contractor ...........LY~'1/-h.+...5.......�11�1/i..!UC f 2'�.n Address... 5... . r-I.Q1.......1 op:•V hh............. ........O t.. ...............zip..1l. aZ b 5 ....:...� . Y.�.�.5................ Phone......! ...�..:./..........s 5 ........1. email.... ,C�cZ!'►'1Yn�`S �...............l._I. .-. 13 consultant — ! �••lG ? ..1 .. h?.�` 1...... Address.................................................................................... Phone ...... ....!'.:(_..........c.l...�.-'i.l j............. email ....... ........................................... ..... ............ _..................... .. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: 0 Site plan Roor plans © Building elevations © 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 roe rr i '4 .ca. ••i•••."•S� ..................................._..._......................................................................... ............................................. Use of property .................. ............ Date constructed (if known) ••-•••......•••••~••••••.••"'••""•"' 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 El Woodlawn Historic District Clark Street Conservation District Q College Hill Conservation District Dearborn Street Conservation District Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing Noncontributing n Nonhistoric Project Type [; Alteration of an existing building Cie. 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 Cie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) Construction of new building 1p Q Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance Other....................................................... Jul 29 09 04:22p p.2 Project description ..............................�.......... ...1.......,-.}`•Q.................. ..................... . ...... ...... :4 C e......... '.......... C�. , : ?............................................................. ............................................... ............ ..................... .................. CtCZ ..........................�...'T.._.......:...................._..................................................................................................---.... ..........................................................................................................._.................. ........................................................................................................ ................................................................................................. . .........................................................................................I.............. ......................................------------. - ................................................ ................................. ................ ............................................................................................... I ........ I ...... ......... .......................................... ............. _........ ........................................... .................s. �.........° . {,Tf ..... ......................... .................................................................................... `�. ... Y �: �.........---...... .................................................................................................................................................. .,_................................. ............... ... ..................................... ... I .................. . ............. .. ...... .............. ....5 ��.R_cc�C:......._.t1t..11.. ��.._u`.....`...................................... Exterior appearance changes.......... ....-...C. .._ ........ _....................__................_.....�.11..._...... �..'........................�.. .......................... ..... ._................. ........ _.......... I .............. .....51�SL� :�.�.........------ ........ ........ .......................................... ............. .... ........................................................................................_......._........_._._........_.............._.._........_................... ._........-.....:.............................................................. ..t `...s......................_................................ ...................................................I....................6..... ME 61, Q U-) z W I— x 11J NI` L400 ram% 4w< u(n z 0 V) w X W N M I�FJII UJ V z ui L.L xn Ll 8 O - Z ON OR L1J O•• • ° u.. 41-T CL% NTH 36'x4r. I ' 36'x4p 2-t PROPOSED 4;2 SUN ROOM Q GARAGE 4 i0o N K�I C� HCN VALL TO BE ' REN°YEO 2" 2' 44" T-w NiR i S' I Jj ° DINING O P N O IT4 —_ is Wx 7' °AL K. 2-/ 16 24 t 2-1 l mv� l (;i! ', Historic Preservation Commission C .1" l >>il, 41 l? NV'astiinuuoi Ilc _'i, 1%'11�,; (n. i:1 "( Date: July 28, 2009 To: Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Chair of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission From: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner Re: 614 N Johnson St - Garage demolition A tree fell on a small garage at 614 N Johnson St. The fallen tree and damaged garage present a hazardous condition to the property. I have attached photos of the damage for your review. The Housing and Inspection Services (HIS) department is declaring the situation an emergency and requiring the immediate removal of the tree and the garage. Technically the garage will require a demolition permit and HPC approval, but given the emergency nature of the situation, it cannot wait to go through the whole HPC process. Given that the garage is already destroyed and that it is a non -historic structure in the district, I have told HIS to proceed. I will bring this to the attention of the rest of the Commission at the meeting on August 13 for discussion. cc. Dann Ream, Code Enforcement Assistant Historic Preservation Commission � �tr er � �' ... ``.` � CA°' a� mod. .,� _ "A'. - •1%'° f� -�`� - '°. 'ems` i.? °+JG• ;� !,� '�"'� .'r_, ` '" yr !� {�/ . ' .;''°• .!�' #` 4 � - - NIN lip ,Jnson �: s V = eZ� a "`� '• ,,�,�rn •+; ..} 2` � � _F��i•' 'i��. tier«P� Al 7 .7" 9-7 1p O•tom _ � . + c' � . V� � 3 �� '� , s, Nr` t sir. LA lot 1 ,r, `yya a• :t ., J f -i A it v a • .r ,' •:�' ''� -..ram' +.., _ M, Ow ON .. f.:, � '"�;y �� , ' _. _. " •fir .� d � � ';. - ice. - - ., ��. �.. • (� `II�R��.�ry.�.��,. 614 N Johnson 7-27-09 { 14 N Johnson MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2009 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, David McMahon, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker, Pam Michaud, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Christina Kuecker, OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Jeff Clark, Kristen Eastlund, Zach Eastlund, Russ Garrett, Brad Lynch CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Bunting Eubanks introduced McMahon as the new representative from the Longfellow District. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 607 Rundell Street. Anderson said this property is a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the owners would like to replace eleven windows on a one and one-half story gable roof house. Anderson stated that ten of the windows are double hung windows, and one is a slider window. Anderson said that the proposed windows are Pella architect series wood windows and appear to be of the same dimensions as the original windows with the possible exception of the kitchen window. Anderson said that window is proposed in the application with three divided lights, and the kitchen window currently has four divided lights. Anderson the one other possible issue is the slider window. He said the guidelines recommend against modern -type windows unless they conform to the architectural style, and staff feels that this window does. Anderson said staff recommends approval of this project as proposed, with the option of three or four divided lights for the kitchen window. Lynch, the owner of the property, said he was available to answer any questions. Bunting Eubanks said the Commission frequently looks at window replacement, but windows can also be redone, which would be a cost savings. Kuecker pointed out that neither the kitchen window nor the slider window is on a street -facing fagade. She said that in a Craftsman house, especially a Moffitt House like this, it would not be atypical to find a slider type of window. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 607 Rundell Street as proposed in the application with the option of three or four divided lights for the kitchen window. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Baker, Michaud, and Wagner absent). Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 2 6 South Johnson Street. Anderson said this is a non -historic property in the College Hill Conservation District. He showed a photograph of the current structure, which has a flat roof. Anderson stated that the applicant is proposing to add a pitched roof to the existing structure. Anderson said the applicable guidelines prohibit significant alterations to a roofline; however, exceptions have been made in the past, stipulating or allowing for any change that does not further detract from the historic character of the district, does not create a false historic character, and if it is compatible with the style and character of the non -historic property. He said staff feels this pitched roof is acceptable, as it does not conflict with any of the exceptions. Anderson stated that further, staff recommends that the simple option one be approved. He said it is the option without the dormers. Anderson said staff feels the simpler option is more consistent with the style and theme of the house. He said staff further recommends that a cornice board be placed below the roof and that a simple shingle be used. Clark said that what it does not show is that there is right now aluminum that goes down below the eaves. He said that is not going to be removed. Kuecker said staff was not sure if the cornice would be retained, and if it was going to go, they wanted something in place of that. Clark responded that if it does get removed, he would put the eight -inch cornice board on, but right now he does not believe it will be removed. Clark said the project is being done for drainage and to keep water away from the building. Downing said that this building is only eight years away from being eligible for historic status. He said that one of the challenges of historic preservation worldwide is that buildings that are too young for people to really have nostalgia for are going to move into this realm of historic preservation. Downing said that even now buildings are being lost to demolition because of this feeling. He said that maybe this is something that could be turned around some time in the future. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 6 South Johnson Street as presented with the conditions that: the roof be constructed as shown in option one; either to leave the existing aluminum cornice or, if it is removed, to replace it with an eight -inch cornice; and simple shingles. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1, with Downing voting no (Baker, Michaud, and Wagner absent). 837 Maggard Street. Kuecker said this property is in the Clark Street Conservation District. She said this is a non- contributing structure in the district, primarily because of the porch enclosure, the second -story deck, and the application of wide replacement siding. Kuecker stated that those three alterations impair the integrity of the property. Kuecker said the applicant is proposing to remove the porch enclosure and to rebuild the deck above. She said the guidelines recommend the removal of alterations that detract from a building's historic character, and this would be one move in the right direction. Kuecker said that getting rid of the closed -in porch would be removing one of the reasons the house was considered non-contributing. She added that staff does not feel that reconstructing the deck will further detract from the historic character that may be there. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 3 Kuecker said, however, that since this is a non-contributing structure because of alterations, when alterations are occurring it would be beneficial if the owner brought the structure closer to being a contributing structure. She said staff is therefore recommending that there be some care taken with regard to the type of handrails and detailing on the porch, such as the cap on the columns, handrails that tie into the top and bottom rail, having a cornice board at the base of the deck area, and having a handrail that is sloped so that the water will run. Kuecker said that overall, staff is recommending approval of the proposal as presented in the application with the conditions that a simple balustrade or railing be used as shown in the drawing provided, a cornice board be placed below the decking of the second story as shown in the drawing provided, that the porch/deck appear similar to the design shown in the drawing provided, that all exposed wood be either painted or stained and not left as raw lumber, and that variations to these conditions be subject to staff approval. Bunting Eubanks asked if it wouldn't be more accurate for the wood to be painted and not stained. Kuecker said that is true, but it is not regulated by the Commission; the Commission can say that the wood has to be finished but cannot say how it is to be finished. Bunting Eubanks said it seems like this is a move in the right direction. Baldridge said the photographs make the house look nicer than it is in actuality. Ponto said that right now it looks like the porch extends farther north than the side of the house. Kuecker said that it does extend farther north. Ponto asked if it will have the same footprint when it is rebuilt. Kuecker replied that she understands that it will be brought back to being flush with the house. She said the owner wants to move the stairs to the other side, which may be better, because it would be the less visible side for most people. Ponto asked if the stairs would overlap the double windows on the south side. Kuecker did not know. Kuecker said that if the stairs do go in front of the windows, the windows would probably end up being removed or have to be changed. Ponto said that from a safety point of view, one does not want to have stairs in front of windows. Swaim asked if a deferral might be in order. Kuecker said she did not believe a deferral would be beneficial. She said it looks like currently the stairs start way back, and in the new plan they would start up a little farther. She said that if the stairs did go in front of the windows, the Building Code would require the window to change, and that would require it to come back to the Commission. Bunting Eubanks said the project would make this closer to a contributing structure. She said that then if someone new comes along and buys it, they could easily take off the deck and remove the stairs, and then it might be a contributing property. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 837 Maggard Street with the following conditions: that a simple balustrade or railing be used as shown in the drawing provided, a cornice board be placed below the decking of the second story as shown in the drawing provided, that the porch/deck appear similar to the design shown in the drawing provided, that all exposed wood be either painted or stained and not left as raw lumber, and that variations to these conditions be subject to staff approval. Downing seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Baker, Michaud, and Wanner absent). Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 4 326 North Linn Street. Kuecker said this property is in the newly created Northside District. She said the proposal is for a pergola addition and a fence construction. Kuecker said this is a contributing property in the Northside District; however, it does have an addition to the rear that would be considered a potentially non-contributing, non -sympathetic addition. Kuecker said that the fence addition is along the raised platform, and the pergola is above the third -story deck. She said the pergola would only be on the portion of the deck that is behind the existing house. Kuecker showed a view from the rear, pointing out where the fence and where the pergola would be. She said that based on the drawings, the pergola would be no wider than the existing house and it doesn't look like it would be any taller either. Kuecker showed an elevation drawing with the pergola addition and the fence. She said that the fence is very unique, but the Building Department said that it would be classified as a fence. Kuecker said that overall, the guidelines do allow for additions that don't detract from the existing structure to the rear of the property and also allow for the construction of fences and recommend that they be similar to historic fence styles. She said that since the pergola will be on the back of the house and will not be highly visible from the street, in staff's opinion, it is appropriate for the building. Kuecker pointed out that the rear addition is already incongruent with the historic house, and she does not feel the addition of the pergola will add to that distraction. Kuecker said also that although this is not a traditional fence and is not a historic fence style; staff feels the decorative fence does not detract from the historic character. She said she sees the fence more as a piece of lawn art rather than a permanent structure. Kuecker said if the next owner does not like the fence, they would likely remove it. She said that staff recommends approval as presented in the application. Swaim asked if the fence runs right up to the house. Kuecker responded that the fence does not touch the house but does connect to the garage and is along the raised platform. Swaim asked about the material of the statues, and Kuecker replied that they are concrete. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 326 North Linn Street, as presented. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Baker, Michaud. and Waoner absent). 815 Brown Street. Kuecker said this is a contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District. She said it is an example of a Goosetown cottage that is typical of the east end of Brown Street. Kuecker said it is a very simple cottage and has been well maintained over the years with the original windows, siding, and roofing materials. She said it is a very well-preserved example of a Goosetown cottage, which Iowa City does not have a lot of. Kuecker said the applicant proposes a two-story addition to the west of the house. She said there is a very large, healthy tree in the backyard that prevents an addition from going too far to the back. Kuecker pointed out that this house does sit on a wider lot than most so that there is room to add on to the west. Kuecker said the proposed addition is a 14 by 18 two-story addition that is taller than the existing structure. She said the owners have tried to match many of the details of the existing Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 5 house. Kuecker said the desire is to increase the second -story headroom and livable space as well as create a second story master bedroom and bathroom. Kuecker said the guidelines do allow for additions to historic houses, provided the addition is compatible in design with the historic building and does not detract from the structure. She said the guidelines state the following as recommended, "Designing an addition that does not diminish the character of the historic structure and constructing additions that are consistent with the massing and roofline of the historic building." Kuecker said the guidelines also list as not recommended, "Constructing additions that expand an historic house vertically and increase its overall height." She said staff has concerns that this proposed addition overwhelms the existing house and will change the architectural style of this house from a simple cottage to more of a Craftsman -style house. Kuecker said staff also feels the proposed rooflines are not compatible with the existing roofline, adding busyness to a simple roofline. Kuecker said, however, that staff does understand the need for an addition to this house. She said that currently there is a bathroom only in the basement of the house. Kuecker said, however, staff feels that an addition can be designed that balances the needs of the applicant with the needs of historic preservation. She said that she had met with the applicants to discuss the alternatives. Kuecker said the applicants did not feel the alternatives would meet their needs and wanted to bring forward their proposed addition to get the opinion of the Commission. Kuecker said she consulted with Marlys Svendsen, a preservation expert, on this application, and her indication was that an L-shaped addition with gables and possibly some dormers would be more appropriate, which is what Kuecker has shown in the two alternatives. Kuecker said that alternative A shows a cross gable roofline that is slightly higher than the roofline of the house and would address the need for headroom. She said that on the rear of the addition there is a shed gable that would allow more room. Kuecker said that alternative B still has the L-shape and is not taller than the existing house, so the owners don't get the headroom they would like. She said, however, that it could expand farther into the backyard, perhaps creating a first floor bathroom/master bedroom. Kuecker said staff consulted with Svendsen on this, and Svendsen indicated that something similar to what staff has proposed would be a more appropriate addition than the one presented by the applicant. Regarding materials, Kuecker stated that all the materials the applicant has proposed meet the guidelines for whatever addition is done. She said she recommends approval of alternative A or B, subject to staff approval of the final design. Kuecker said if substantial changes need to be made, the project would need to come back before the Commission for review, or the Commission could vote to defer this project until a suitable addition is proposed. Kuecker said she does not recommend approval of the applicant's original plan, because it does not meet the guidelines and would result in the loss of the character of this small cottage. She said the cottage design of this house is important to the Goosetown characteristics of Brown Street. Kuecker said that if any plan is approved by the Commission tonight, the applicant should have the option of using either wood siding or smooth faced fiber cement board siding with a reveal to match the existing, and the applicant should have the option of using a standing seam metal roof that matches the existing metal roof, using asphalt shingles on the addition or Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 6 reroofing the entire structure in the same material, with the final roofing material subject to staff approval. Kuecker showed a massing illustration that she sent to Svendsen. She said this is what brought to light that the addition that the applicant proposes is overwhelming to the existing house. Zach Eastlund, one of the owners of the property, said that they have been fighting this headroom issue for about five years now. Kristen Eastlund, the other owner, said that they love the house and want to stay there and raise a family there. She said they think Kuecker's alternative is cute but doesn't solve the height issue. Kristen Eastlund said they considered having the bathroom and bedroom on the main level. She said, however, that when they have kids, they want to be on the same level with them, and they therefore like their proposal. Bunting Eubanks asked about the first alternative that is more elevated with more headroom. Zach Eastlund said they have been looking at this issue for about eight months. He said that they like their proposal, as it was the first thing they came up with, and they like the way it looks from the outside. Zach Eastlund said that making this work on the inside is just as important to them. Kristen said the pictures don't really accurately give a sense of how this will be. She said that it is almost like a story and one-half. Garrett, the consultant for this project, said the roof comes down all the way to the floor on the second floor. Zach Eastlund confirmed this. Garrett said that with the pitch of the roof, there is six feet down the center of the room that has six feet eight inches of headroom. He said that if one stands in the center of the room and puts his hands up, he hits the ceiling in both directions. Garrett said the problem he has with the proposed addition is that it does not allow for what the homeowner wants. Garrett also said that for the amount of money that would be spent on the addition; there would be so little usable square footage. He said that basically there would be a place all the way around the perimeter of the second floor, except where the dormer is, where there will be four or five feet in from the edge of the house before one will be able to do anything — even set a dresser there. Garrett said that there will still only be about eight feet of usable space in the center and there is not any way to get headroom. Garrett said therefore they have discussed doing a larger addition to the back. He said there is a massive fir tree back there, and it is hard to come up with an addition to the back that would not be a continuation of the existing roofline that would create a tunnel that sticks out that back. Garrett said the owners would really like to have three usable rooms on the second floor and a bathroom. Bunting Eubanks asked if it is possible to put two bedrooms on the main floor, if there were a bigger addition there. Kristen Eastlund said that it would be possible, but the kitchen would then be in the middle of the house. Garrett said that one just about has to be inside the house to understand how small it is. He said that it is 24 by 26. Downing asked if anyone has drawn a cross section to determine actual headroom. Garrett replied that the top of the windows are just over six feet off the floor. He said that there is a horizontal member holding the roof together so that tallest one could be now, going all the way to the ridge with no drywall or anything in it would be about 8 feet 6 inches. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 7 Garrett said that Alternative A would increase the headroom and give more space. He said that ultimately might be what would get most of what the owners would like. Garrett said he finds it unattractive. He said that the dormer out the back doesn't have the impact on the front, and he realizes that what people are after is to keep the impact on the front as minimal as possible. Garrett said that the alternatives just do not serve the objective. He said that he has even thought about trying to build the addition so that one steps down three steps to the main floor and then also steps down into the second floor. He said that would help with the massing of the roof, and the ground falls away pretty dramatically to the west so a first floor addition would work well to be stepped down into, but there would be the same problem on the second floor that there wouldn't be enough headroom. Bunting Eubanks asked if removal of the tree is a viable option. Kristen Eastlund said that they love the tree and added that it is a huge tree. She said that she would never cut it down. Garrett said there is also an issue with going straight out the back of the house. He said that when one comes up the stairs, the dormer to the left is the stairwell. Garrett said that when one comes up the stairs one walks in front of the window, and then there is a hallway that goes back. He said there is a bedroom on the right and one on the left. Garrett said that with an addition going out the back, the bedroom on the left would have to become a hallway. He said that would be throwing away space to go out the back, although he agreed that there could be a much larger addition going out the back to redeem the space. Garrett said that the roofline would have to be very similar. He said that if this could be taller, to gain headroom, it could go up another four feet on the back side and have the back roof elevate four feet above the existing roof, and that would give some headroom to work with. Garrett said that one would be able to see it from the street, and it would not be very attractive to see the gable of the rear addition. He said that if he stays at the same line, he runs into the same problem of no headroom. Bunting Eubanks asked if this could go out the back for the basement and have steps that go down for the master bedroom area. Garrett said he could do that out the back, but there is also the issue that the kitchen is right there, and they would lose the kitchen window. Bunting Eubanks said the Commission has to abide by its guidelines and cannot exercise them arbitrarily. She said the Commission cannot consider the interior of the house, so the issue is to not be unfair to others who might have been denied something that didn't comply with the guidelines. McMahon asked why there is so little headroom here. Kuecker said the area might not have originally been habited. She said the building codes when the house was built might not have required as much headroom. Kristen Eastlund said that in one of the drawings for an alternative addition, the pitch of the roof is higher than the one proposed. Bunting Eubanks said that Kuecker differentiates between the original house and the addition by virtue of the L shape. Bunting Eubanks said that in the applicants' proposal, it looks like the house was always like this and really makes the footprint bigger. Kristen Eastlund said that what they wanted was to make this not look like an addition. Bunting Eubanks said that it overpowers the original house. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 8 Kuecker said the guidelines stating that an addition should not be taller than the house fall into the not recommended category, where the Commission has a little flexibility. She said if there is no other way to build an addition without it being taller or if the addition being taller is compatible with the style of the house, then the Commission can approve those projects. Kuecker added that if the taller addition is not compatible with the house, then the Commission should not approve it. Kuecker said her thought with option B is that there would not likely be an additional bedroom upstairs and that maybe a bathroom would fit up there but the additional bedroom would be on the first floor. Bunting Eubanks asked if there would be enough space to wrap around and have two bedrooms on the first floor without affecting the tree — if it could go back far enough. Kuecker said that part of the addition could be extended farther this way, but that gets into the roofline, which may present some problems. Garrett said the owners really just want a bedroom and a small bathroom. He said the room on the first floor is just a bonus, and then there can be a bedroom on the second floor, because it has to have a foundation. Kuecker said that it might be best to defer this application to work toward something to bring to the next meeting in two weeks. Zach Eastlund asked that the Commission consider the original proposal. Swaim that the proposed addition makes the house have a strange telescoping effect where the original house bumps out from the addition and the porch bumps out from there. She said that it makes it hard to distinguish the original house and the addition overwhelms the cottage. Swaim said that in the staff alternatives, the original house is highlighted and the integrity is kept. McMahon said that he is the Commission's newest member. He said there is a dynamic relationship between the past and present, and certainly the neighborhood is evolving and changing. McMahon said that historic preservation is about maintaining the historic character and integrity of the neighborhood, being able to tell a story. McMahon said that he is sympathetic to the need for space here. He said he sees this change from a cottage -style to more of a craftsman style. McMahon said that he understands the significance and importance of the guidelines but is also in that gray area where he is not as opposed to this. He said that what is significant to him would be whether the cottage can still be present in the particular fagade. McMahon said this is more striking to him, more reminiscent of an aesthetically pleasing design, and in that it has a historical component, even though it is an addition. McMahon said that anything that one does to the house will be an addition. He said the problem comes when the Commission starts considering something like this; the horse is then out of the barn, and everyone wants to do similar things. McMahon said that is a good argument, but sometimes that argument may need to be put aside. Trimble said the Commission is supposed to vote using the guidelines. She said the guidelines say to differentiate and not overwhelm the original structure. Trimble said she does not feel this proposal follows the guidelines. Bunting Eubanks said that she feels that all options should be examined before changing the structure significantly. Garrett said there are a variety of things that could be done to change the Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 9 roofline that would still maintain the character. He said that his perspective doesn't show the angle that Kuecker shows. Garrett said that Kuecker shows an angle that makes it so obvious that the addition is set back eight feet from the front of the house. Garrett said he does not have a drawing that shows that perspective. Garrett said that the addition is eight feet from the front of the house, and that the porch is eight feet deep. He said the windows of the addition are setback almost 16 feet beyond the front corner of the porch. McMahon said one is able to tell more than one story with a property. He said that there is judgment in finding whether this is overwhelming and judgment involved in determining future viability as a property. McMahon said that historic preservation is one value. He said there is a tension between maintaining this as a viable property and preserving it as a historic structure, and all of this comes into play with this example. Bunting Eubanks said that before she is willing to consider bending the guidelines, she would need to be convinced that there were no other options. Garrett said tree removal is not an option for the owners. Swaim said that the tree can have as much to do with the character of a property as the house itself. Zach Eastlund asked if the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) did not feel the proposed addition changed the designation of the property would the Commission be more likely to approve it. Swaim said that even if it did not change the designation it did not automatically means that it would be approved. She said if the Commission is leaning toward not accepting the original proposal, it could just as well say that now and not wait for a determination from the SHPO. Baldridge said that he feels that the setback of the addition does make a clear distinction between the original structure and the addition. Bunting Eubanks said that surveys were done on all the properties, at which time it was decided which properties are contributing and which are not. She said there have to be enough contributing properties to constitute a historic district. Bunting Eubanks stated that if a design alters a building's status as a contributing structure that removes the property from the list of contributing structures for that district. Trimble said one thing that the State can offer as architectural historians is other options. Ponto said that almost all the additions the Commission has approved have been an L or off the back and not something that has changed the front fagade. Zach Eastlund asked if the SHPO would look at the whole street. He said that there are a couple of Craftsman houses a couple of blocks away. Bunting Eubanks said they will look at each property individually, because the street is a combination of small cottages and craftsman style. Kuecker said that the SHPO would look at the house itself and the significance within the district. She said the significance of the Brown Street District is that it shows the variety of periods of the settlement of Iowa City and the different types of people who lived and worked in the area. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 10 MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 815 Brown Street, as submitted. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 1-6, with McMahon votinsa in favor (Baker, Michaud, and Wanner absent). Bunting Eubanks said that if the owners are really set on the proposal, they could take it to SHPO and get an opinion. She suggested, however, trying to find other options that do not alter the roofline as much. Bunting Eubanks said that the owners could also work with the State on an alternative. Swaim said that going to a larger arena that has more exposure to other situations and communities in Iowa may be beneficial. Bunting Eubanks said the Commission wants the owners to be able to get more space. She said the owners should not feel discouraged. Zach Eastlund said he did not know what the next step would be, since this can't go above the existing roofline. Ponto said the Commission is not refusing to allow this to go above the existing roofline. Kuecker said the Commission is saying an addition cannot go above in the manner proposed. Ponto said the Commission has approved an addition off the back that had an elevated roofline compared to the original house. He said that because it was off the back, someone on the street would be looking at it at an angle and would not see that elevated roofline in the back. Zach Eastlund asked what the procedure would be to get an opinion from the State office. Kuecker said she could send the information to the State office and get some sort of determination from the experts there. Zach Eastlund asked how long that would take. Kuecker said it would depend on the workload there but could vary. Swaim said that even if the classification of the house was changed in relation to the district, she is also looking out for the house itself. She said that the house is more than its particular classification and it tells the story of the original Goosetown inhabitants. Bunting Eubanks said the applicants are welcome to come back in two weeks with a revised plan. She said she is certain there are other solutions. Ponto asked how far west the addition could go. Kristen Eastlund said they have 20 feet to the west. Ponto said that the addition could be extended two or three more feet than shown on the plan. Garrett said probably about eight feet. McMahon said he would be interested in what the State Historical Society has to say. He said that the owners are probably in the best position to make an argument to that office. Kuecker said she could provide the owners with the information. Bunting Eubanks said she would expect the State to say that the proposed addition would change the status, just because it goes against so many of the recommendations for additions. She stated that there is going to be an option other than the proposed plan that will give the owners what they want. Baldridge asked if because the lot slopes down to the west so much, is there a way of using that to greater advantage in a basement level, which would be ground level here. 617 North Johnson Street. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 11 Kuecker stated that this is a contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District. She said the applicant recently purchased this house and would like to make some changes. Kuecker said that the siding is quite deteriorated, as shown in photographs in the packet. She said the owner would like to remove the wood siding and replace it with fiber cement board siding. Kuecker said the guidelines recommend repair and only using a substitute material in place of wood when the siding cannot be salvaged. She said that this house is a good candidate for using fiber cement board siding, as long as it has the same reveal as the existing siding, with the narrow clapboard style, and all the trim boards, frieze boards, corner boards, and window trim are replicated. Kuecker said that Anderson did substantial documentation of all the current trim boards, etc., so that it can be replicated. Kuecker said the retaining walls at the side stairs and back stairs are in poor condition. She said the stairs are not to code and do not go on to a stable surface. Kuecker said the applicant would like to remove and rebuild the retaining walls and stairs and likely the sidewalk as well. She said the applicant would like to reconfigure the rear stairs from going to the side to going straight out to the parking lot. Kuecker said the guidelines do not directly address this sort of project, but it seems like a suitable alteration that provides for better functionality and safety. Kuecker added that the applicant would like to put a handrail on the retaining wall, because it is beside a sidewalk. She recommended a simple, metal black pipe handrail, rather than using something more ornate. Kuecker said this house is unique in that it has many Italianate details but also is reminiscent of the foursquare style and was likely built when the two styles were shifting in popularity. She said the porch is a very Italianate porch that is deteriorating. Kuecker said the owner would like to remove the porch and rebuild it using fiberglass columns and cement board siding for the sided rails. She said the owner would like to bring everything up to code and redo the stairs to meet code. Kuecker added that the height of the rail would change. She said the owner wants to use the bead board ceiling and the tongue and groove decking to recreate the details of the porch. Kuecker said staff believes that if the porch is reconstructed, that the sided rail was likely not original and that it was likely a simple balustrade similar to that on a neighboring house, which would be more appropriate. She stated that the guidelines recommend replicating the historic components when replacing the deteriorated portions. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of the certificate of appropriateness for the project as presented in the application with the following conditions: the applicant using a simple round steel pipe handrail along the retaining wall; the fiber cement board siding must replicate the profile, dimension, and overall appearance of the existing siding; the fiber cement board must be smooth surface; the window and door trim, frieze boards, and corner boards must be replicated in profile, dimension, and overall appearance of the existing; the porch must be reconstructed to match the existing porch in detail and overall appearance (including but not limited to: cornice details, roofline, piers, bead board ceiling, tongue and groove flooring, etc). Accommodations can be made to meet existing building codes; the sidewalk and concrete steps must be recreated to match existing; the railing being a simple wood balustrade as shown in staff's drawing provided in the packet with the porch posts extending to the porch floor; and staff approval of final plans prior to obtaining a building permit. Kuecker said that the posts must have deteriorated at some time or were cut off right below the details, and now there is just a painted four by four below it, hooked on with painted metal Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 12 brackets. She showed what the posts probably looked like originally and said it would be best if the applicant uses something similar. Downing asked if there are any historic photographs of this property available. Kuecker replied that she could not find any. She said that it likely was not too much different than it is now, with the exception that the side porch was probably a usable side porch. Downing asked about the window trim and if it is available in cement board. Kuecker said the owner had not proposed to do anything with the window trim. Kuecker said she was concerned that some of it would be damaged or removed, and the owner needs to make sure it is matched, whether by new wood trim or fiber cement board. Downing asked what the reveal of the siding is. Kuecker said she believes it is about three and one-half or four inches. MOTION: Trimble moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 617 North Johnson Street with the following conditions: the applicant using a simple round steel pipe handrail along the retaining wall; the fiber cement board siding must replicate the profile, dimension, and overall appearance of the existing siding; the fiber cement board must be smooth surface; the window and door trim, frieze boards, and corner boards must be replicated in profile, dimension, and overall appearance of the existing; the porch must be reconstructed to match the existing porch in detail and overall appearance (including but not limited to: cornice details, roofline, piers, bead board ceiling, tongue and groove flooring, etc) (accommodations can be made to meet existing building codes); the sidewalk and concrete steps must be recreated to match existing; the railing being a simple wood balustrade as shown in staff's drawing provided in the packet with the porch posts extending to the porch floor; and staff approval of final plans prior to obtaining a building permit. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Baker, Michaud, and Wagner absent). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 11, 2009. MOTION: McMahon moved to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2009 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, as written. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Baker. Michaud. and Waaner absent). Burford said the Friend's Board had begun a list of potential HP award nominees. Kuecker said that she meant to bring it but did not. Burford said that the awards are scheduled for Monday, November 2. Bunting Eubanks described the various categories of awards. Kuecker asked Commission members to take note of worthy properties, adding that they can be anywhere in town and don't necessarily need to be in a district. She said the project should preferably have been completed within the last year. Burford said that she had been contacting people about a forum/lecture regarding energy efficiency. She said that the Iowa City Library and the Iowa City Landfill had received a grant to promote ecological programs in Iowa City and that they are willing to have a lecture about adding energy efficiency to older homes. Historic Preservation Commission July 9, 2009 Page 13 Burford said that she had also contacted the Iowa Center for Sustainable Communities and they were interested in having a program in Iowa City. They suggested that she contact Rod Scott with the Iowa Preservation Alliance about coming up with a program. Burford said that the Friend's Board would be discussing it at their next board meeting. Swaim said it sounds great. Bunting Eubanks agreed and asked what kind of effort is needed from the Commission. Burford said just being able to use the Commission's name would be beneficial. Bunting Eubanks asked Burford to let her know if there are specific things with which the Commission could help. Kuecker said she just attended a daylong workshop in Waterloo regarding the historic preservation tax credit. She said there is a lot more money available for small projects, for which the dollar requirement is a project less than $500,000. Kuecker said that to qualify, the project has to be over either 25% of the value of the property or $25,000. She said the tax credit is for 25% of the rehabilitation costs. Kuecker said that in general, historic preservation tax credits went from 20 million dollars per year to 50 million dollars per year. She said she plans to mention this to as many people who come in to see her as possible. Kuecker said it applies to interior or exterior work, as long as it meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards. She said that additions and site work are excluded. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte ■r ti XLXX XwxXXw X XXXX i ; OOOXGo N XXXX �XXX-_ to V- XXXXX XX-XX XXXXX XX - XX M X X X X 0 ; 0 X X X X -- XXXX ; XXXXX N Co X X X X X X X X X �NO NONON E 2-� M M a) 0) 0) 0) 0) X w N McoMMMMMMMMM N N N N N N N N N N O C C Y E O 'C d L V = L 'd �= O�a� V= �_ � R r w OR E E C Emm�W O �? � 3 fn1—� c3 Z H W J 0 -00 m o Z a`> U p� Q X r7 N U U Eo f� L . Q Z O a-Q II II Z II II W_ 2 II XOOz ' 5-: ' W Y