The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-08-2010 Historic Preservation CommissionIowa Cl*ty Historic Preservation Commission -..I- L I till c Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:00 p.m. i 9 Iowa City City Hall r Emma Harvat Hall 1 1 n n n n I I �e • Cam..- . �� r-� � \i Z Opp T ? _ Pvmam/l PC-stEVC—Fondoc ry IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, July 8, 2010 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. 422 Brown Street 2. 503 N Van Buren Street 3. 734 Oakland Avenue D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 1107 Burlington Street 2. 304 S Summit Street 3. 617 N Johnson Street E) Reconsideration of Certificate of Appropriateness for 1207 Muscatine Avenue F) Consideration of minutes for June 10, 2010 and May 27, 2010 G) Other H) Adjournment Staff Report Historic Review for 422 Brown Street Structure: Contributing Classification: Brown Street Historic District July 8, 2010 The applicant, Richard Wayne, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition project at 422 Brown Street, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The project involves the demolition of an outbuilding. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: ..0 Iowa City Hkstonc Pmsenatwv GuidehnesforDemoltion Staff Comments This property is the Gaslight Village and contains two historic homes, with many non-contributing additions that were added starting in the 1950's. The applicant is proposing to demolish a small outbuilding on the property. The applicant has provided photographs of the outbuilding that show a significant amount of rot and decay. It is apparent that this structure has experienced a significant amount of neglect and deferred maintenance that has compromised the structural integrity of the outbuilding. The guidelines state that the decision to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of outbuildings on contributing and non-contributing properties will be made on a case -by -case basis. The Commission should consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the outbuilding. The guidelines also recommend the removal of structurally unsound elements that present a safety hazard. The outbuilding is not shown on this lot in the 1948 Sanborn maps. This shed was built after 1948, likely during the same period as the many additions. The shed is in poor condition, with substantial decay throughout, as shown in the photographs. In Staff's opinion, the shed is in bad condition and the structural integrity is in a questionable state. It would not be impossible to restore the building, but given the non-contributing nature of the shed, its small size, and it not being visible from the street, there is no great preservation based reason for retaining this outbuilding. RecommendedMotion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition project at 422 Brown Street Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the Planning & Community Development office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HistoricPreservation For Staff Use: ; Date submitted: U-7 / 2�/ /V ❑ Certificate of No material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The Historic Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the Building Inspection Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. --- —_— - ------ ---- --- - --Property-Owner/Appl cant Information -- -- (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: 1 C Email: el lb-EU-SS I q� y /ll. (.00Phone Number: Address: t \ 6 VA �� 00-b City: e_�_ C) C'A fL . X State: Zip Code: 2� o ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: Email: Address: City: Phone Number: ( State: Proposed Project Information Zip Code: Address: Use of Property: !i�iv (}ate Constructed (if known): Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Prr erty is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): IM Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: 0 Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District M Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be postponed. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Rehr or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Project Description: v 1 0 L-1 Tl 0 tJ Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: app forh i stori crevi ew-pd f Proposed Project Details 0 q t>&-Vt EL —I CT S - &D , Page 1 of 1 http://www.Iowa-city. org/tm_bin/tmw_cmd.pl?tmw_cmd=FileOp&shl_opt=download&shl... 6/24/2010 Ilk VT Vy "� ,.t.w 'MONK' it '`'� to '" tr , .ab,� '4. d. i,s ' 'at. e + . # s "�-r•�,_"_ x.sm IAW p x a rm .z z Ra u �� :2 C Staff Report April 8, 2010 Historic Review for 503 N Van Buren Street District: Northside Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants Tammy and Kris Sweat, are requesting approval for a proposed project at 503 N Van Buren Street, a contributing property in the Northside Historic District. They are seeking approval to remove a chimney, reroof the house, and install an air conditioning unit. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 0 Iowa City h.&tonc R-eseruatwv Guidel ves forAtew;t 2,vs 4.4 Mass and Rooflines 4.12 Chimneys 4.13 Site and Landscaping 70 Iowa City Historic Preserr &x w Griidelznes forDemolition Staff Comments This American Foursquare house was built in c. 1922. The house has few stylistic details except for the Craftsman -style vertical light window sashes. The front porch has been screened in and replacement siding has been installed. The applicant is proposing the removal of a deteriorating chimney. The applicant is also planning to reroof the building and install an air conditioning system, with the exterior condenser unit being on the northeast side of the house. The roofing project does not fall under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission. 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 those portions that are structurally unsound. According to the applicant, the chimney is significantly deteriorated. 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. The location of the air conditioner unit is being placed on the least visible side of the house. RecommendedlVoai .v Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 503 N Van Buren Street as presented in the application. Application for Historic Re. dew 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 of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Date submitted .... ...1... `si. t. .................... Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgov.org/HPhandbook ;,4_ Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the secondThursday of each month. During the summer months,the HPC may also meet on the fourthThursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Applicant Information ti�t� (Please check primary contact person) Owner .. � 5. S l.. k ............................................................... Phone...... ..rL-....... ::3 ©........ ............................ Address .�..�..4... r..0 i�.�.....................................................i r 1 ��G Z.........zi........:.... }..:. .................pI' :7.... ® Contractor................................................................................ Address.......................................................................................... .................................................................................zip ................... Phone.............................................................................................. email................................................................................................ Consultant................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... .......................................................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. Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information '/ Address of property .... s �....�I : U ra 0.... .�.................. 't.... ��.:..`.......�.....'........................................................ Use of property ..... �lm + V�t ` �1 ........ ............ .......................... Date constructed (if known) ........ r�.....--..-................................ Historic Designation This property is a local historic landmark O his property is located in the: ® Brown Street Historic District © College Green Historic District E] East College Street Historic District ® Longfellow Historic District 014r��35 �t ® Summit Street Historic District D�� Woodlawn Historic District ® 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: Contributing ® Noncontributing El 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) ® 4ddition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) D on of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, himrie , decorative trim, baluster or similar) E] Construction of new building Ell"Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance QOther.............................................................................................. Project desc%ption Materials to be used ---_------___-----.'----.__-'------_'--__---- /� �" -----------._----------' ' ...�-' -----. - ---`'~`^^~~--^^^--'--^'''--'-^-'--'-'--'----''-~-'-'~^'---'---~-'---------~-''-' Exterior appearance changes . . ........... ..... ... .0/V-Z .............................................. k .. T6 ...... ......................................................... ..................................................... �__ ........................................................... h^''J,.k .^''''.. t-i^—^'. -.': .... '....................................................................................................... --'`'-----^—~--''~~-'--`~-'--'--^'--~—~--^`^--^-^-'-^^---^^~^'~—^---------' Staff Report July 8, 2010 Historic Review for 734 Oakland Ave District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Keith Yenter, is requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 734 Oakland Ave, a contributing property the Longfellow Historic District. He is seeking approval to construct an 8' x 13' 5 'h " deck on the rear of the property. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: S. 0 Iowa City historic Pmse7wtion Guidel hes forAdditi0ns 5.2 Decks and Ramps Staff Comments This house built in 1936, is an example of romantic revival cottage based on its side -gabled steep roof and centrally located decorative gable with an offset projecting gabled entrance. The applicant is proposing to build an 8' x 13' 5'h" deck off the rear of the house. A enclosed paneled railing is proposed. The deck will be constructed of wood. The guidelines recommend locating new decks on the rear of the building and set in at least 8" from the sidewalls. Decks should also be of a scale and location that does not detract from the character of the district. The guidelines also recommend for deck railings to meet the requirements of 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails. In Staff's opinion, the proposed deck will have minimal impact on the character of the house or the district. The deck is set back from the sidewalls and will not be visible from the street. RecommendedMotion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition project at 734 Oakland Avenue as presented in the application. Aj _ lication for Historic Re, !w Application tor alterations tote exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation For Staff Use: ;' 7 t. of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Date submitted .......E:... ....t�� Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgov.org/HPhandbook 4 Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the secondThursday of each month. During XIL 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) r] Owner AJ tkt Ir . Phone( ��.�..'..t.Q.-t.. .......................... Address ....rT...1.E, -L) ...... �.. '.......... .... �' I T,%�........ email.................................../........................................ ................ E] Contractor.......t(.+...1.1!(...d....,..).....C.... Address ......�X.t �...... ....G................. i,. ..... zip-510�.Cfc Phone............3©. email................................................................................................ rl Consultant ........c51►�M�-.......................................... Address................... ...G/.................................. .......................... ..... ..................................I....................................... zip ................... Phone.............................................................................................. ......................................................................................................... email. .............................................................................. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: 0 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 ....... 1...-3 .t ©A�-<� M,- � ...Lu i� ............................ ...... ......................,� ................ .............. ,. .-..,- 5..��c.E... Use of property................................�61KC..... Date constructed (if known)!FnJ.,,2..a4.! Historic Designation ® This property is a local historic landmark OR This property is located in the: 0 Brown Street Historic District Q 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 Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing Noncontributing 0 Nonhistoric Project Type Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) Construction of new building Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance Other.............................................................................................. Project description ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................ ................. , .....<.-.....y........................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................-............. ........................... � ,� o.. ..111.. ... -eds.l ..-. . . Ar................................. �........ ............ ............ ............ ..... ................................... ............................... ........................ I.............. ........"......................... ............... ........ ............... ............. ....................... ............. ....... ................ I............. ......... .. ............................................................................................................................... .. ....................... .�. ........... I.......... .................................................................................................................. . .. . ... .. ................................................................................................................................................ .,............................................................. r7� .. ... ........I.......... ............................... ......................................................................................... ...� 4� ... lab at ..............................................................................................................AM ....,,.�....zlr.....f/ Materials to be used `t�-�` �r� r Aol � d�C�TO ,�►l ............................................ 44ND....... G ,....... '-..,',�� n..................................... .............................................................,.9ot�.�.' ......;t q .�5........ Via...... rW ................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Exterior appearance changes .......................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................... Ft NIC;......... �..A- .......� ... 6�.......�ar..r..N.....41-LI-s.�A94- 5 ................................ .`'0................ ...... 1�o ...... ..... ......TWO....... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ \\ Y'V Staff Report July 8, 2010 Historic Review for 1107 Burlington St District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Amy Smith Pasley and Dave Pasley, are requesting approval for several projects at 1107 Burlington St, a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. The projects consist of removal of the existing chimney on the rear of the house, replacement of the asphalt roof with a standing seam metal roof, repairs to the foundation, and the addition of a. new chimney. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 0 Iowa City Historic Preseruxtion Guidelnes for,41terations 4.1 Foundations 4.4 Mass and Roofline 4.7 Windows 4.12 Chimneys S. 0 Iowa City Histonc Pmseraxtion Guidelines for.4dditions 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint 7. 0 Iowa City Histonc Pmserr, Mm Guidelines for.Demo1iion Staff Comments This 1 lh story gable roof house features a wrap -around porch with classical porch posts. The integrity of the c. 1900-1910 residence has been impaired bythe application of modern replacement siding. Although no distinctive style is present in this vernacular house, there are Queen Anne and period revival influences. The proposed projects consist of removal of the existing chimney on the rear of the house, replacement of the asphalt roof with a standing seam metal roof, repairs to the foundation, and the addition of a new chimney. Chimney The applicant is proposing the removal of a deteriorating chimney. The guidelines disallow removing prominent chimneys that are important to the architectural character of the building. However, the guidelines also recommend removing those portions that are structurally unsound. According to the applicant, the chimney is deteriorated and non-functional. 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. Roof The applicant is seeking approval for to replace the asphalt shingles with a standing seam metal roof. The guidelines do not specifically address this situation, but in general recommend using historic materials when doing repairs. Many homes in Iowa City had metal roofs early in their history. It is possible that this house had a metal roof at some point in its past In Staff's opinion, the conversion to a standing seam metal roof would minimally impact the historic character of this structure. Foundation The applicant is seeking approval to make repairs to the foundation wall including tuck pointing the foundation and bracing one wall. The guidelines recommend correcting all sources of moisture that are causing damage and repairing historic foundations rather than replacing them. In Staff's opinion, the repairs to the foundation will have no impact on the historic integrity of the house and will help stabilize the house. New Chimney The applicant is seeking approval to add an exterior chimney to the west facade of the house. The chimney construction would require the alteration to the windows on the west bay. The center window on the lower level would be eliminated and the two side windows would be moved slightly away from the chimney. One window on the second level would be eliminated, with the other being moved slightly to accommodate the chimney. The applicant has provided drawings of the proposed chimney and photographs of similar chimneys from the neighborhood. The guidelines recommend for new full -height exterior fireplace chimneys to be masonry and consistent with the architectural style of the building. When new windows are used they must be wood or metal clad wood that match the type, sash width, trim, use of divided-lites, and overall appearance of the historic windows. Any new window arrangement must be consistent with the window pattern of the historic building or buildings of a similar architectural style. In Staff's opinion, the proposed chimney and window arrangement is consistent with the Queen Anne/Period Revival influence vernacular house. Exterior chimneys are common on both the Queen Anne Style and the Period Revival style. Staff believes that the window pattern is also consistent with both styles. In addition, staff is uncertain if the windows on the west bay are in their original configuration. Given that the windows are not entirely symmetrically placed in the wall and that there have been alterations to the house over time, including replacement siding and additions, it is difficult to tell the exact original window locations. RecommendedsLMotion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration projects at 1107 Burlington Street with the condition that the new windows are solid wood or metal clad solid wood double hung windows that match the sash width, trim, use of divided-lites, and overall appearance of the historic windows. Any divided- lites may be either true divided-lites or created with muntin bars adhered to both sided of the glass, but not with snap -in muntin bars. Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the Planning & Community Development office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HistoricPreservation w, "W , For Staff Use: Date submitted: 6 / 24 / 2010 ❑ Certificate of No material Effect EI Certificate of Appropriateness ❑� Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The Historic Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the Building Inspection Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: Amy Smith Parley and Dave Pasley Email: doasley6c ooticalmechanics. com Phone Number: (319) 621-3913 Address: 1107 Burlinaton St City: Iowa City State: IA Zip Code: 52240 ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: Email: Address: City: Address: 1107 E Burlington St Phone Number: ( ) State: Proposed Project Information Zip Code: Use of Property: residential Date Constructed (if known): _ Historic Designation (Maps'are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District I] College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: El Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric Property at 1107 E. Burlington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 The property is owned by Amy Smith Pasley and Dave Pasley dpasleykopticalmechanics. com phone 319-621-3 913 We have a number of projects that we are considering. I am submitting the information we currently have regarding the projects for a Historic review. I am sorry that I do not have any drawings at this time. Please consider the projects described below and let us know if the review is accepted of if we need to include additional information. I would be more than happy to attend the review meeting to discuss the projects or supply more information at that time if needed. Proj ects 1) Removal of the existing chimney (see photo above) at the rear of the house. The chimney is not functional. 2) Reroof the house after chimney removal and roof patch with a raised ridge metal roof similar to http://www.metalmonstersinc.com/. Roofs of this type are common in our neighborhood (see house in the back ground) BE 41 jmw ip 4W. 40 see • I k ■ Staff Report Historic Review for 304 S Summit Street Structure: Key Contributing Classification: Summit Street Historic District July 8, 2010 The applicants, John and Connie Nolan, are requesting approval for a proposed demolition project at 304 S Summit Street, a Key contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. The project involves the demolition of an outbuilding. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 7. D Iowa City Historic Preserr,a&t )7 aidel nes forDemolition Staff Comments rs two-story brick house was built in c. 1868 for nursery owner Levi Kaufmann. It features a symmetrical f ve bay faced with limestone sills and lintels, and end chimneys. A front gable is located above the central entry and paired Italianate brackets are found along the cornice. Originally featuring a full width Italianate porch, the central entry now has a classical porch treatment. A four -car garage is located near the southeast corner of the lot. The house serves as the entrance to Summit Street and is considered a Key structure. The garage is non-contributing. The applicant is proposing to demolish the four -car garage near the southeast corner of the lot. The applicant has indicated that the outbuilding has a significant amount of rot and decay. Upon inspection by Staff, it is apparent that this structure has experienced a significant amount of neglect and deferred maintenance that has compromised the structural integrity of the outbuilding. The guidelines state that the decision to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of outbuildings on contributing and non-contributing properties will be made on a case -by -case basis. The Commission should consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the outbuilding. The guidelines also recommend the removal of structurally unsound elements that present a safety hazard. No outbuilding is shown on this lot in the 1933 Sanborn maps, but the four -car garage is present in the 1948 Sanborn maps. This garage was built between 1933 and 1948. The garage is in poor condition, with substantial decay throughout, as shown in the photographs. In addition, the garage is a non-contributing/non-historic addition to the neighborhood. There are some cases where the Commission would want to save a non-contributing or non -historic garage, such as when it provides a buffer along a street frontage or between buildings. In staff's opinion, this is not the case in this situation. In Staff's opinion, the garage is in bad condition and the structural integrity is in a questionable state. It would not be impossible to restore the building, but given the fact that it was built some time after the house, there is no preservation based reason for retaining this outbuilding. Recommende,1Aotion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition project at 304 S Summit Street Application for Historic Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the Planning & Community Development office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HistoricPreservation iew For Staff Use: Date submitted: b/_vr_/- i' C) ❑ Certificate of No material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness OT Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The Historic Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the Building Inspection Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each, month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. See.attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please checkprimary contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: Email: Phone Number: C3 IdD 35 1 —`Zt Address: i S - 5V wttA4 i T— City: State: `" Zip Code: V�ZZq l Contractor / Consultant Name: -J01-1'W Cd V4.c r,1 j(.��-u-/ C-0"-07' Go Email: e— [.K i.-c+.r - Phone Number: (;I cf) 3 �� H - -7 000 Gn•�ti v o w . COW7/ Address: 5 . Gyyt LT' l �� 1), i3oyC L9 D (e, City:. C tly State: JDkZip Code: 5Zzy Proposed Project Information Address: 3PL-i 5 r 5 V wlnAA-I T Use of Property: G C Date Constructed (if known):��— Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District Summit Street Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Contributing 0 Noncontributing 13 Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be postponed. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans Q- Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: appforhistoricreview-pdf Staff Report Historic Review for 617 N Johnson St District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing July 8, 2010 The applicant, Paul Bliss, is requesting approval for several projects at 617 N Johnson St, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The projects consist of replacement of the metal roof with asphalt shingles and alterations to the side porch. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 1/0 Iowa Ciy Historic Pmsenatiox Guidelnes forfllterations 4.4 Mass and Roofline 4.8 Doors 4.9 Porches 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails Staff Comments This house appears to be the forerunner of the American Foursquare, as that house form evolved in the 20th century. Several elements of this house mark it as an earlier house - perhaps as early as the 1880s. The hipped roof is shallow and truncated, reminiscent of Italianate structures. It also lacks the familiar dormers of the Foursquare. Finally, the house sits on a raised foundation, a feature more related to Italianate houses than Foursquare houses. This house reflects the transitional form between the square Italianate houses of the 19th century and the popular American Foursquare of the early 20th. Previous neglect had left this house in a deteriorated condition. The current owner is undertaking several projects in the rehab of this house. The Commission has previously approved siding replacement, front porch reconstruction, and retaining wall reconstruction. The proposed projects include replacement of the metal roof with asphalt shingles, covering the built in gutters and installation of new external gutters, and alterations to the configuration of the side porch. Roof The applicant is seeking approval for to remove the standing seam metal roof and replace it with asphalt shingles. He has submitted some photographs of the deteriorated nature of the metal roof. The applicant has indicated that he is not able to repair the metal roof and it has come to the end of its lifespan. The guidelines recommend for the repair and preservation of original materials whenever possible. Many homes of this age in Iowa City were built with wood shingles and then converted to metal roofs as a form of fire protection when families became more affluent. It is not certain if this is the case here, but it would not be uncommon. The Commission has also approved the conversion of metal roofs to asphalt shingles in the past when the metal roof is beyond repair. In Staff's opinion, the conversion to asphalt shingles would minimally impact the historic character of this structure. The new asphalt shingles should be high quality architectural shingles that have the appearance of a shake -style wood roof. Gutters The applicant is seeking approval to cover the built in gutters and install external gutters. The roof pitch will not change at the built in gutter. The guidelines allow for the covering of built-in gutters and applying exterior gutters only if the roof slope at the gutter is not altered. In Staff's opinion, the covering of the deteriorated built-in gutters meets the standards of the guidelines and will have minimal impact on the historic integrity of the house. Side Porch The applicant is seeking approval to reconstruct the side porch. In order to make room for the retaining wall project, the non -historic stairs, railing, and landing were removed. The currently existing stairs, railing, and landing were installed temporarily in order to provide safety. The applicant proposes to remove and replace the entire side porch. The new roof would be changed slightly in size. This change could disconnect the bay window roof from the porch roof. The applicant has indicated that the connection of these two roofs cause substantial water damage and drainage issues. The details of the side porch would replicate the details of the front porch, using the same trim details, posts, and railings. Images of the proposed doors, railing style, and post style have been included. The porch deck/landing is proposed to be smaller in order to accommodate the lower level entrance. The porch deck will be approximately half of the width as the roof, with the lower level entrance comprising the other half. The guidelines recommend repairing historic porches rather than replacement, but also recommend replacing badly deteriorated components with new ones that match the historic components in design and material. In Staff's opinion, the existing porch is in bad condition. The proposed porch replacement will be more similar to the original side porch that the existing porch and will still provide access to the units in the house. Staff believes that since the porch alterations are being done to mimic the front porch, the proposed alteration is compatible with the house. RecommendedMotion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration projects at 617 N Johnson Street with the conditions that the roofing material (color and profile), porch columns, and porch piers be approved by staff. P.1 Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the Planning & Community Development office at City Hall or online at: cgov.oi-g/ HisLOilChf' SE1'Vr111C31� For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minorreview The Historic Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the Building Inspection Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4 Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) C] Property Owner Name. _Bliss Properties. L C. / Paul Bliss Email: odbliss@vahoo.00m Phone Number: (415) 302-5432 Address: 1041 _Cariuchino Ave City: Burlingame State: CA Zip Code: 94010 ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: loot Shots Construction Email: Phone Number: (319) ,533-0168 Address: 5429 J St SW City: Cedar Rapids State: IA Zip Code: > G Proposed Project Information Address: Use of Property: Income Date Constructed (if known): 1900 Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR 21 This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): El Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ 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: ❑ Contributing 0 Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric p.2 Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be postponed. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprintsuch as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs Cl Product information ❑ Site Plans 21 a' n (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient) ❑ Building Elevations Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ _Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Dgmoli on (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) chimney, ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans 0 Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. Its Photographs ❑ Product Infh—t-in„ ❑' ether: Please see power point document supolied Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: Replace seam metal roof with asphalt shingle roof. No adjustment in pitch will be made, we will flatten out existing built-in gutters and add exterior gutters and drain spouts. Materials to be Used: (for structure repairs), Metal gutters & spouts, Asphalt shingles Exterior Appearance Changes: Seamed metal roof to Asphalt shingle a ppforhistori creview-pd f p.2 Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be postponed. ❑ Addition _ (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) El Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product information ❑ Site Plans Cl Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) O Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Renair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356.5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: ebuilding side porch at 617 N. Johnson St. Materials to be Used: Spindle posts, decorative wood footing/riser, wood, shingle roofing Exterior Appearance Changes: ould like to let current porch size remain in place (original appeared to have been added on, was not historic design or construction - unsafe structure was not built to code) and slightly separate garden window from arch overhang structure (two different projects). Overhang will remain the same size with spindle posts for pport. appforhis toricrcview-pd f ,«<sa s VAIII Lu „77/S yg ®§ i2 \.''mSOHs1N ® k ~ 617 N. Johnson St — Roof Replacement Roof has been neglected for an extended period of time. Dated 80 to 100 years old. Notice condition of wood around eaves and siding covering almost 2/3's of house: Rotted and/or in decay. Why? ?.-afo-Jtj &Ooy-� Staff Report July 8, 2010 Historic Review for 1207 Muscatine Ave District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, City of Iowa City, is requesting reconsideration of the door alteration project at 1207 Muscatine Ave, a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 40 Iowa City Historic Pmserration Ctiidelines forfllterations 4.8 Doors Staff Comments During the May 13 meeting the Commission considered several projects on this house, including the alteration to the side door. The existing door is approximately 6' tall and is in need of replacement due to lack of maintenance. Because of the condition of the door, it needs to be replaced no matter if the opening size is altered or not. The Commission previously voted to deny the alteration of the door opening because it was determined that the shorter door was a character defining feature of the house. City Staff has found several examples of nearby foursquare houses with taller side doors. Photos of these doors are included in your packet. The guidelines allow for the replacement of doors, but in general recommends for new windows and doors to retain the size of the existing windows unless required for egress. However, the Commission has approved alterations when necessary to improve functionality. The existing door is approximately 6' tall, thus a 6' 8" door would be more functional for the residents of this home and more economical in replacement. In Staff's opinion, the change to the door is compatible with the historic nature of this house, provided the door is replaced with one that matches the foursquare/craftsman nature of the house. Given that the changes are not on the street facing elevation, the impact to the historic integrity will be minimal. RecommexdedfLMotion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1207 Muscatine Ave with the conditions that door specifications be approved by staff and all trim around the new door opening match the existing trim. r ^Y,®, Olt CITY OF IOWA CITY '�� M E M 0 RA N D U M Date: May 6, 2010 To: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner From: David Powers, Housing Rehabilitation Specialist Re: 1207 Muscatine Ave On my original memo dated May 61h, 2010 1 requested permission to rework an existing 6' tall exterior door on the side of the home in order to install a standard sized door in its place. I understand the reluctance to altering the character of an old home such as this one, but I do need to resubmit my request in the hopes your will reconsider your decision. City staff has done some research and have found that it is not uncommon to see taller doors on four square homes such as this one and therefore not out of character for the style. We have identified several examples in nearby neighborhoods of taller doors on four square homes which I have included pictures of for your reference. Additionally, in order to replace the existing door, which must be done for both security and energy efficiency, a custom built door must be made to fit the opening. This means that the only type of door that could be installed, without becoming cost prohibitive, would be a blank slab door of either wood or steel. No paneled door would work and it would be difficult to find a door lite that would fit and look appropriate in a small door other than a small 12"x12" square lite. The expense a custom made door makes it cost more than reworking the opening for a standard sized door. The impact of increasing the door's height on the appearance of the home would be minimal because the new trim would match the existing and the crown at the top would be reused for the new door. Fortunately, we do have the clearance inside to make the opening taller without modifying the interior ceiling. The existing width will work so we don't have to modify anything but the height. OUP L. fit•. ..� c �'� �1 .P.� }I .d'' ys4--w, .•. ° to �N '.tip f '�b J '�< '• t .fit JS',,,,�r�,,,,t`,//�`''`��.' a'� .• fd.ss ��. tlk I* i. •;. °k 1 �T• `•, . `� `;ter `. �O „fig,. j � �-�•r.;,� � � :• ;v ,� �� .,. ' a •••�� • �. rt . �, � � �S ¢ ��s, ; `� � ��. ►� V�'i, tit. �: - Y v • • �l� ,fi aa'� t i4J Al al <� �*` ss , Y.,r� `• .. _..J 5' w Hai :r . -a • �' y i "C- f 16 •� ,L` ' i Rip, 1 WA a _4 I _ # f y •r ter. •�xF. p' _ , " � . : �>� w f � � .:x'1.b.`tas-. � _ + • Y r lrt _.,•ate• p � F , •��,. ., - r. • .fig � i ' _ .SCa .f >N } i 3 �' � '9 � ,H �+� k I •w•i. � ;y- f G { � - Pr 14, IT two i.�% __ T ' ., � � � � _� 1. d' .� � ?. �t � `��• •, - ..y +• �''k y-"��',f .c4 nd '+�,;4 '�iP� v � � ' �a �s�h Fy �:3 ,W . �� .• r - .. � , - - .F c2 '� "k', S" "'��,k, �` � �•Y.h`' � cr�. d.,� � 3 .i'�' < "� �� r -;.t yf.'� �. l � yam,,. �� - �� f c,, "-'h 3 - ,z> �; a '4�<: +:.- ,'� & 2''�'4 `3 � +'�•.. '» Ei ;c�6kr _.1: �:.e• �' c:;fi. ?W^'`�h t +I., r ^:k''� +' "�y; ,.: !"+ d �;� x_ _ `S. :: °.:, Ayr yy`' �� r r i •4 w 3!s ` r; I e v. .;- ,q r �. �,:Y. y _'.] h '4:y "�' �¢t.. ::4,�ry�,4 M•2i "SJ �, -h}�3 4 '.�E-•u. ''+ ��ai.'�, `f` _ �r Y 1i S b�,"^" ..5r r - �.?�,f ;� .r ��-.. '� i,�z ; .�q�''.»-Aa 7Y��^'. �� _ y?r �` s� ,a•`� : .� .Y � ,,. i * f1l; ' .�c . �+'� 'v"i' �p§�T:+'1 r! ''-...`-N.�'t j _ � Y��•rr j-s - °�'5'',�.; •�L. 2,.+}t :i��}I},#�i��'.� .�4v. {��. _. 'i`" �.i {' -4 �s� '?'}ALyy _ { 40 �d .. � 1•.!. d. .. d. ' � 1 Y;Et .r�S ,-'.A t .^ � �e d _ _ _`�".'. ..fa :. '. , .�: �.� Y,:Ft �:...:, -.... .�•e ',t�t .., :E, iF � '� _ h} F ,.ti�+� 4 1vt � t .�-� '�t - k je :• RSi thy`.: +`,•Pµ� �r r t•�. N. au MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 13, 2010 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Preliminary MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing„ Pam Michaud, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: David McMahon, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Arnold, Tracy Barkalow, Jeri Hobart, Tom Hobart, Pat Naughton, John Reynolds, Judy Polumbaum RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) There was none. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 618 Dearborn Street. Kuecker said the applicant is seeking approval of an application to install a rear deck. Michaud inquired about the style for the rear door of the property. Kuecker explained this has not typically been a concern in Conservation Districts. Michaud said she was concerned about the safety of the deck, particularly the interior corners of the deck. The applicant, Pat Naughton, explained this design feature is meant for placing a permanent grill so the corners would not be exposed. MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for a deck at 618 Brown Street, as proposed in the application. Downing seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann, Wagner, absent). 619 Brown Street. Kuecker said that the applicant is seeking approval of a 4'x9' addition on the east side of the house. The proposed materials match the house. There is currently a cellar door entry where the addition is to be constructed. The addition would be a one story bump -out on the original structure. Kuecker said it. is Staff s opinion that the addition matches the historic characteristics of the house and recommends approval as presented. Michaud asked whether or not the exit would remain. The applicant, John Reynolds, said an exit would remain and explained the history of this portion of the house. Reynolds said the bump -out would not go past the existing bump - out MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for an addition at 619 Brown Street, as proposed in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 2 1205 Seymour Avenue. Kuecker said the applicant was seeking approval to remove lap wood siding and replace with wood shingle siding. The house next door has shingle siding and they were probably identical when built. Kuecker said the owner had a photograph of the original shingle siding and would like to use similar siding on the home. Kuecker said staff recommends approval as submitted. Michaud asked if the siding was cedar. The applicant, Jeri Hobart, said it was redwood because other materials had problems keeping paint. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the siding replacement project at 1205 Seymour Avenue as proposed in the application. Baldridge seconded the motion. Michaud added that if the proper salvage could be found, the applicants should have the option to repair the siding with salvage materials. The applicant said they would consider looking for salvage materials, but added that redwood has tendency to split. The applicant said the moisture barriers on old houses are not very good, so replacement seems necessary. Michaud asked whether or not they would be re -insulating. The applicant said this was the second time they have sided the house and improved the moisture barriers as best they could. MOTION: Michaud moved to amend the motion to allow the applicant to use salvage materials if they could be found. Baker seconded the motion. The amendment carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). The amended motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Thomann, Swaim, McMahon absent). 630 North Dodee Street. Kuecker said the applicant was seeking approval of an application to add three dormers to the property and to install a cellar door on the north side of the property. Kuecker said that two f the dormers would face Ronalds Street and one would face the rear of the property. Kuecker said that the guidelines allow for dormers in that are compatible with the architectural style. She elaborated on the guidelines and stated that the dormers met most of the requirements. Kuecker said the dormers should have a roof pitch similar to that of the house, Kuecker said that, in staff s opinion, the dormers would be compatible with the vernacular Queen Anne style of the house, however the 6/12 pitch as shown appear too shallow compared to the 12/12 pitch of the house. Kuecker said an 8/12 or 12/12 gable pitch would be more appropriate. Kuecker said the applicant is also proposing a below grade cellar door on the north side of the house. She said a set of stairs would lead to the door, with a set of cellar doors covering the stairs and entrance. Kuecker said the applicant had selected a cellar door style to use and would explain the choice and location of the door to the Commission. Kuecker said that it is staffs opinion that the cellar door meets the guidelines and would have a minimal impact on the historic integrity of the house. Kuecker said staff recommends approval contrary to the deferment recommended in the packet. She said that staff recommend approval of the dormer project with the condition that the dormer roof had the same overhang and detail as the existing roof, the dormer pitch be changed to at least a 8/12 pitch, but not to exceed and 12/12, the dormer siding and trim match the existing siding and trim, the windows be solid wood or metal clad, and that windows be subject to staff approval. The applicant, Judy Polumbaum, gave a presentation about how her home flooded in 2008. She said she was in the 500 year flood plain and was eligible for the second round of buyouts. Polumbaum said she did not want to go through another flood again and accepted the buy out. Polumbaum said she was surprised her new home was in a historic district and that it was located near a commercial area as well. She said she is happy to be a contributor to the district, but was unaware of the designation. She began working on the house three days before receiving notice that the building permit required HPC approval. Polumbaum said there was a history of additions to the house, including a porch. She explained that due to size constraints and location of utilities, the rear of the house could not accommodate a cellar door. Polumbaum said the existing cellar stairs are original to the house and are very steep, making another cellar entrance desirable in order for the cellar to be usable. She said that construction stopped after the historic status was made known to her and has halted construction for six weeks. She pointed to such non -historic additions to the house like the greenhouse window and radon pipe. Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 3 Polumbaum pointed out the location of the dormers on a photograph. She said that she has already stuccoed the basement to make it dry and usable before construction. She said that the additions would make the house more livable and visually appealing. She said Brian Arnold would comment on the additions. Arnold said the windows are not egress windows. Wagner asked if the radon pipe would go in front of the dormer windows which would not be allowed. Arnold said he would need to check on that. Arnold said he chose the casement window because it would be consistent in size with the rest of the house. Michaud said the more window area in the attic would be better in terms of light and emergency. Michaud said she has a cellar door bulkhead like the one proposed. She said a dark paint color would help the cellar door recede. She said that having it pre -colored would save on paint in the future. Baldridge asked if they could move to approve without seeing the drawings of the steeper pitched dormers. Kuecker said that she recommends at least an 8/12 pitch, but didn't necessarily need to see the drawings. Michaud recommended a single window on the rear dormer to match the width of the window below. Arnold said that they would consider it prior to construction. Kuecker said that based on the meeting the windows should still be subject to staff approval based on the information gleaned during the meeting. Ackerson inquired about the pitch change on the rear window. Kuecker said the pitch should be consistent for all the dormers. Kuecker said a 6/12 would not be common on a Queen Anne style. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 630 Dodge Street, with the stipulation that the three roof dormers be closer to an 8/12 pitch with a single window in the northwest dormer and appropriately sized windows for the other dormers, subject to staff approval. Michaud moved to approve the cellar door as proposed. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). 841-845 Masuard Street Kuecker said this was an application for siding replacement. She said it is a non -historic home on the end of Maggard Street and the applicant would like to place vinyl siding on the property. Kuecker said the guidelines make an exception for the siding of non-contributing properties within a conservation district. She said these stipulations were included in the staff report. Kuecker said that historic features need to be maintained and not removed. She said in staff s opinion the project meets the exceptions laid out in the guidelines and since this is a building from the 1980's vinyl siding will not impact the historic integrity of the house or neighborhood. Kuecker said staff recommends approval. Michaud said she went by and looked at the property. Michaud said that they often recommend that non- contributing homes be renovated to look more historic using fiber cement board. She said it might be more durable than vinyl. Barkalow said he planned to use vinyl and that both neighboring homes have vinyl siding. He said that vinyl siding is also desirable from a cost standpoint and for a clean look. Barkalow said he put a new roof on the property a few years prior and mentioned the historic review process for a deck installed at a nearby property. Michaud asked whether the 837 Maggard property was right next door, Barkalow responded yes. Kuecker said the commission would get to 837 next. Michaud said it might not make sense for one building to have vinyl siding just because it was newer. Kuecker said they were to be discussed separately. Wagner asked if the existing siding was steel. Barkalow said he wasn't certain. Ackerson said that over the long term, vinyl is not the best investment. Barkalow said that vinyl has worked out well for him so far and anything needing paint wouldn't last as long. Michaud asked Barkalow to address the moisture issue further. Downing said that is more of an issue for older homes, particularly when insulation gets wet. Michaud asked whether the windows would be trimmed off with vinyl. Barkalow said yes. MOTION: Downing moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 841-845 Maggard as proposed in the application. Baker seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 4 Wagner said there is an exception for non-contributing properties, even though he does not like it. Wagner said a similar property on the corner of Dodge and Washington used cement board siding that is looking really good and would last forever. He recommended that Barkalow look at this example as an option that might also be cost effective. Michaud said that cement board holds color well too. Michaud asked if a shorter reveal would make the property look a little less 1980's. Barkalow said he would look into it. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). 837 Maggard Street Kuecker said the applicant is seeking approval to put vinyl siding on this property, which is non-contributing. She said the reasons that it is non-contributing are the wide replacement siding and alteration to the front porch. She said the owner replaced the porch with a more historically appropriate porch, although not historically accurate. Kuecker said there are exceptions for non-contributing properties in conservation districts that allow for synthetic siding provided that historic features are retained, the synthetic siding is similar to historic siding, and wood siding is not removed. She said that these exceptions are intended to provide additional flexibility in cases where a proposed construction project does not significantly affect the architectural character of a historic structure. Kuecker said that this property is non-contributing because of the current application of synthetic siding and this project would serve to perpetuate the nonconformity of the property. She said staff believes that the existing asbestos siding should be removed and if there is wood siding underneath, it should be restored. If not, staff recommends installation a 3-5 inch reveal lap cement board siding with a minimum of a 4 inch trim around all windows and doors. Barkalow said he wanted to point out that the front porch was removed because it was collapsing and was not something he wanted to do specifically. He said he had spoken with the adjacent property owner who said he wanted to see the property cleaned up, sided, and moved along. Barkalow said there is a large apartment complex across the street and doesn't think it would upset the tenants there. He said from a cost standpoint, it wouldn't be feasible to renovate or modify the property to any greater an extent after installing a new roof and porch. Michaud said she walked by the property and saw numerous layers on the structure. She said those would have to be taken off anyway. Michaud said she saw asphalt and slate that would have to be removed prior to vinyl installation. Barkalow said the contactors didn't think there would be any problem putting siding on and was not aware of the layers described by Michaud. Michaud said it was visible in the back of the house. Michaud said Barkalow had been buying properties like crazy this year and assumed he had a lot of them around town. She said this would average out so Barkalow could do what need to be done with a smaller house. Barkalow said that he wasn't sure what his other properties had to do with the one in question. Michaud said her point was that cost probably is not the issue. Kuecker said that cost should not enter the discussion; rather, the commission should look to the guidelines to judge appropriateness. Michaud inquired which department would decide how many layers are allowed under new siding. Kuecker said she did not know if there was a limit and that would be something to be dealt with by the Building Department. Downing said there are some building code limitations regarding the subject, but did not know detail. Downing asked the age of the original construction of the home and deck. Michaud inquired about the deck. Barkalow said the deck was collapsing and needed to be replaced and cost more than a standard deck. He said he didn't want to over spend on one property, especially one that had not seen investment in a long time. He said the neighboring properties have vinyl siding and the house is located at dead end so he thought that this case would be a good exception. Barkalow said it would be cost efficient and would make the area look better. Wagner said there are principles of historic preservation that the Commission is trying to maintain and does not want to go against the principles for this exception. Wagner stated that the same reasons and guidelines for granting the exception for the previous property make it difficult to grant an exception for this property. Kuecker said that the Commission has approved vinyl siding on non-contributing properties; however, they were non-contributing for a variety of other reasons. She said this property was non-contributing because of the siding. Trimble asked Kuecker to speculate the age of the property. Kuecker said she would guess around 1910. Michaud asked how the top railing was allowed to be constructed on the upper deck. Kuecker explained the history and said this deck was essentially replicating what was there before. Barkalow said it is the main access to the upper unit. Downing said the baluster looks a lot better than it did before. Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 2010 Page 5 Barkalow said that all that was required from the city now is that he simply paint the property. He said his intent would be to paint if the vinyl siding was not allowed. Downing asked if Barkalow would consider pricing other alternatives. Barkalow said that other options were not financial practical in light of the asbestos on the exterior. Michaud said that Barkalow should repair the front to make it cohesive to the rest of the house and required about the availably of asbestos siding. Barkalow said that he did not believe that there was a way to match that exterior. MOTION: Downing moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 837 Maggard as proposed in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 0-7 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent).. MOTION: Downing moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application of siding for 837 Maggard with 3 to 5 inch reveal lap cement board siding with a minimum of a 4 inch trim around all windows and doors if it can be proved that any existing siding or original siding underneath cannot be repaired. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 8, 2010. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's April 8, 2010 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (McMahon, Swaim, Thomann absent). OTHER: Wagner said the Commission might consider an award for a non-contributing property on Washington and Dodge that installed cement board siding. He said the results were very good. Wagner said it was good to use these materials even on non-contributing properties. Kuecker said she attended a corridor CLG meeting about disaster recovery and wanted to let the commission know that Iowa City was doing something right'compared to other municipalities. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Jake Rosenberg Z 0 0 U Z O a w w Ix IL U 2 0 _N 2 0 U w w W U a 0 z w H a N i T T I � I � I T T I � O I I T 1 1 N 00 co ti O cm X X X x x X X O LO x x x x x x x x x o LC> co X x x x x x x 0 x x x z z z z z z z z Z Z z M 0 X 0 X 0 X X X 0 0 X 0 X X X X X X X X X 0 a O N T M N rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn � co co co co M co M co M co co w H N � a � c Y Y J = Z Q Z G. IL z O W C9 N "� V' L DE U) ZJ Z w w w G w z Q Q = Z Q 2 2 C9 u Q a a a 0 0 3 x oc z Q m m o w a0 U) G 2 O O -p 0 0) O p Z X C LU C � � w O a� .n �QQZ o aQu iiz n n w u XOOz w Y MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 10, 2010 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Preliminary MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Kent Ackerson, William Downing, David McMahon STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Rose Persaud RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 214 S. Summit Street. Kuecker said this application is to cover the built-in gutters on the house. She stated that the gutters have failed and are causing some water damage to the house. Kuecker said the applicant would like to cover them and roof over it, causing a slight change in the roof slope at the location of the built-in gutters. Kuecker said the guidelines recommend that when covering built-in gutters that the roof slope not be changed. She said, however, that the revised guidelines, which have been voted on favorably by the Commission but not yet voted on by City Council, take that into account, and now allow fora slight alteration of the roof slope at the gutter. Kuecker said, given the vote by the Commission on the revised guidelines and the fact that the slight change will be minimally noticed from the street, staff is recommending approval of the application as submitted. Kuecker showed a close-up photograph of the gutters. She also showed the illustration from the revised handbook that shows the after image of the slope change at the gutter. Baldridge said that because this house has such an interesting history, he feels that anything that maintains it in good shape is appropriate. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 214 South Summit Street, as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Ackerson, Downing, and McMahon absent). 522 Rundell Street. Wagner announced that since he was the contractor for this project he would be abstaining from the Commission's discussion. Kuecker said that this project is an addition to the rear of the property. She said this is a Moffitt house built in 1929. Kuecker stated that the addition will not be visible from the front of the house. She said it will line up flush with the side of the house with a slight bump out that will not extend any farther than the chimney extends. Kuecker said it will be in the approximate location of the deck. Historic Preservation Commission June 10, 2010 Page 2 Kuecker showed the floor plan for the addition. She said it would be an enclosed family room/bathroom with a screened porch addition. Kuecker showed the rear elevation and the side elevation with the chimney and the small bump out. She said that the other side would have the door to both the screened porch and the living room. Kuecker said the addition is designed to match the details of the original house. She stated that the siding will be fiber cement board to match the siding on the house. Kuecker said bargeboards, soffits, eaves, frieze boards, and other trim will match the house. She said the windows will be metal -clad wood windows to match the existing windows. Kuecker said the screens will be metal screens with wood frames, and the steps and handrails will be constructed of wood. Kuecker stated that the guidelines allow for additions and new porches, provided the addition is compatible with the historic house. She said that in staff s opinion, this addition has been designed to be compatible with the historic features of the house. Kuecker said staff believes the impact on the house will be minimal and recommends approval of the project with the conditions that: the foundation of the addition match the existing foundation, the porch piers being of masonry, and skirting being installed in the space between the porch piers. Wagner said that the back of the house is going to be a hip roof. He said it will come out to match the line of the angle so that it will have a hip to match the rest of the house. Wagner said that the bump out is actually sort of a Moffit-esque thing that is mimicking the chimney. He said that the upper sashes on the original house are three lights, and thus the new windows will have three lights. Wagner said that the only other thing is that the owners would to change the location of the two doors. He said that if one steps back, it looks crowded right there with both doors. Wagner said he would like to take the screen door, move it all the way over to the end, and then just extend that little porch all the way there. He said one would still come up that way and come into the main addition, but that way those two doors are not right next to each other. Wagner said this would be very similar to the screened in porch approved for 629 Oakland. Wagner said that underneath the existing asbestos siding, which is not the original siding, there is wood, clapboard siding. Wagner said they are going to put fiber cement board of the same reveal on the addition, in the hopes that some day the main house will be taken back to the original. Persaud, one of the owners of the house, said that she would be interested in finding out what the original siding looks like. She said that she has not seen all of it but has seen a section of it. Persaud said she likes it but questioned how a person would know if it is in decent shape and if a person would want to take off all of the siding to get to it. Kuecker said there is not a good way to know. Trimble suggested that many people just randomly sample different parts of the house to see what each side looks like. Baldridge said that one can probably tell by where the existing shows wear or is influenced by the elements. He said that what is underneath it has been subject to the same kind of issues. He said that if one does not see anything that shows much wear, that is a good thing. Kuecker added that many people just end up taking a risk. Michaud asked Wagner if they would be reusing the patio doors. Wagner responded that those doors are not original but were put on in the 70s or 80s, and they are in bad shape. Michaud said that they should consider how the doors swing in order to provide for the most flexible use of the space. Wagner added that the doors from the dining room into the addition will be interior French doors, and the doors from the addition to the screened porch will be exterior. He said they are open to suggestions regarding the style of those exterior doors. MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 522 Rundell Street as proposed, with the following conditions: the foundation of the addition matching the existing foundation; the porch piers being masonry; porch skirting being installed in the space between the porch piers; the rear door to the screened porch being appropriate to the style of the house and done in consultation with staff; the end of the roof over the screened porch being hipped; and the screen door being moved to the rear of the Historic Preservation Commission June 10, 2010 Page 3 screened porch with the outside deck being extended to the rear of the addition. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0, (Wagner abstaining and Ackerson, Downing, and McMahon absent). 517 South Governor Street. Kuecker said this is an application to change the windows in the peak of the house. She showed a photograph of one of the windows and said that the owners would like to change it and the one on the opposite side in the same location in order to provide ventilation and allow for a longer -lasting roof. Kuecker said the owners want to take out the windows and install screens with wood louvers on the exterior. Kuecker said the contractor has said that soffit vents are not an option on this house because of the way the roof is constructed and there would not be adequate airflow between the soffits and the roof sheathing. She said she found examples of houses of a similar style that either did not have anything in that gabled peak or had wood -louvered vents like those being proposed. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of the proposal as presented in the application. Michaud said she thought the third floor was finished. Kuecker said there is not a third floor. She said that the windows are in a small -unfinished attic. Kuecker said the only thing that would be different is that the windows would be removed, leaving all the trim, and there would be screens with wood louvers on the outside. She said the wood louvers are primarily to keep the rain from getting in during a heavy wind. Wagner asked if there is just a ceiling access to get up there. Kuecker said she believed so. Kuecker said there is not enough room to finish the space there. Baldridge asked if there is a similar window on the dormer in front. Kuecker said she believes it is a round vent. Michaud asked if just the top part of the window could be louvered, and Kuecker said it looks more appropriate to do the whole thing. She said the owners plan to use wood louvers and paint them to match the house. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 517 South Governor, as presented. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Ackerson, Downing, and McMahon absent). 1111 E. Burlington Street. Kuecker stated that this application was withdrawn. OTHER: Kuecker said that the statewide historic preservation conference will be held in Red Oak on September 17`h through the 19`h. She said the City should be able to sponsor at least one and perhaps two Commission members to attend. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte N T T r r � , 1 j I 0 r 1 -1 1 1 T� T�17 jIca; 1 N r , , co co Z O �_ LU O X X O X X X X X cfl N N ` x x x x j w O x j LU O LU O x x Q O� O u O LU IMP v- x x x x � x x j x LU O x x QW o r WaN coX X X X X X X i W � x x x Z W M ' z z z z z z z z z z z UQ rz 0 2 r W LU W W W x x X X x X O O N LU X X - X X X X x X X r d — N CD •— CM N M N co• .— r- W W T- rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn a) rn rn rn N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ M CIOM M M coco M W cr) ce) CM M H W o y Y ~ 2 p a w Q G W N Z_ _3 QU. Z Z O W p (7 Z W CIE m Z LU W p W Z Q Q = O v _ Q Q V Q Q m O z Q m m 0 wt— C O -0d O �Z X � E LU C � a�i ca Z o aQuitZ n It W 2 u xobz! w Y