Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2011 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, September 8, 2011 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J Harvat Hall 5:15 p.m. A) Call to Order B) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda Q Consent Agenda Certificate of Appropriateness - 30 N. Clinton Street D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 1141 E. Court Street 2. 435 Grant Street 3. 416 Fairchild Street 4. 332 S. Governor Street 5. 1130 Seymour Street 6. 109/ 111 S. Summit Street E) Report on Certificates issued by Staff and Chair F) Discuss Commission's response to FEMA Regarding suggestions for mitigation measures to offset the adverse effects to historic properties, resulting from FEMA funded undertakings for the University of Iowa. Specifically, mitigation measures to offset the demolition of Henry Sabin Elementary School, and demolition of the former Alpha Sigma Phi House. G) Discuss nominations for Historic Preservation Awards H) Consideration of Minutes for August 11, 2011 I) Public Comment J) Adjournment Staff Report September 2, 2011 Historic Review for 30 N. Clinton Street District: NA Classification: Local Landmark The applicant, the Congregational United Church of Christ Church, is requesting approval for a proposed new outdoor sign at 30 N. Clinton Street, an Iowa City Local Landmark. The project consists of removing the existing outdoor sign at the front of the building and installing a new freestanding sign closer to the street corner. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City His toricPreservation Gvidelinesfor Alterations 4.12 Site and Landscaping Staff Comments The Congregational Church was listed on the National Register in 1973 under Criterion C, (see note below), and is recognized as a well-preserved example of the Late Victorian Gothic Revival Style of architecture as found in religious buildings after the Civil War. Its important exterior elements — pointed arched windows, an imposing corner spire, and decorative millwork — qualified the church for listing. The church was designed by architect Gurdon P. Randall of Chicago. Construction began in 1868 and the church was completed in 1869. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing outdoor sign at the front of the building with a new freestanding sign that will be located closer to the corner of the site near Clinton and Jefferson Streets. The new sign will have a north facing side and a west facing side; it will be made of anodized aluminum and plexiglass, and will be internally lit. The guidelines do not address signs specifically, but do state that site features and landscaping contribute to the character of a property, and that modern outdoor needs should be done in a discrete manner. This sign will be visible, of course, but its location will not significantly disturb the existing landscaping, and it will not directly block the view of the building. Removing the old sign will allow a better view of two prominent stained glass windows. In Staff's opinion, the new sign is an acceptable replacement for the existing sign. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 30 N. Clinton Street as presented in the application. Note: Criterion C: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. Congregational United Church of Christ 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 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect Li(Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. W Property Owner Email: Addres Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) Phone Number: (31 g) 3 3-)- 4 3 d I City: :Z0 t) a, i tL4 State: >4 Zip Code: 5-2 2 4 S- 1700 ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name- — W i d u SE e i 't%1 P_ i Alesp W S ,q rs d f C'&(w^ i dS Email: Phone Number: D r ( ) //,,.�� Address: / � bs0( ufP- Co raz h i G S' 1 SI,G b S -T. City: State: Zip Code: Proposed Project Information Address: /V . , 1 n �y h s'i'. c.�t Use of Property: Q rJ3 Date Constructed (if known): 8 (� 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 ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: 0 Contributing 11 Noncontributing 11 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 rejected. ❑ 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 ❑ 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 91 Other: .F_ (a (t C,yY1 P�Gfi� Of D G4 f S i d e, S i c; n Please contact Ne Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: Materials to be Used: I , Exterior Appearance Changes: on nctr unJer -N-e --f k a., fi --SAe t Q9 , will ►m04Lh fir,,4n 7' be oe.r+i GG1 i 11, w` dou> sr b J S -u 1-11 Ppdadmm/histpresapp_for _historicreview.doc 1oc /4 eas. —' 4 I v +��v �) U - 6/11 a r-\ a: �� rOX i len A6 I oo i� alPfer cv moo l e�-; �r), AV .,.I, w I Lk 3 se; s .Y.+i J:. +S`.i.T%�� -�W„8 $ *r.k +Y*-w.: � 1b "Y.�vu]` YC �•,�Mh4�h.......+w.w4 ,R ..k�.w�,aml�Yxw IC 5 - r a 5A �"wi^"1'"w""`},kw, 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 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect li(Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Lief Property Owner Email: Address: Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) Phone Number: (,319 ) -337 — 4301 City: � W Qi C i fiti State: 1 >4 Zip Code: 52 2 4 .S- 1200 J ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: 1 91) — (,(i i 1 U SE P i 'tit P r A e5 p W SwG nS Of C @7 &'r RV j aS Email: Phone Number:( ) D r Address: A %solu lP City: State: Proposed Project Information Zip Code: Address: i7 /U . r `, r, -' d ► i CA%Q, C i tc4 Use of Property: r, h Lt r ch Date Constructed (if known): 8 �j Historic Designation _,/ (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) 11d 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 11 Contributing 11 Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric +M.r IC 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 rejected. ❑ 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 ❑ 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 Other: 5 Please contact tKe Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: Materials to he 1lserle Exterior Appearance Changes: S' .v\ it, bl°. on _ory�zr under 1-ree (6)ijk a-, tLt)()-sl'c�e� Will ma�c;h �x�st; �► G Chuy �h tr,m� be t9e`--�-� ���; � fi r' A s cam' 80w sr .b I S -u ppdadtnin/histpres/app_for_historicrevim.doc 1 0 C �-rY Cc-s. — V � � r5 y f) o t-o � 3 1' V eS 6/11 G� r, a�p ro'X i �►V ale (o<* Deter 6v m p l e-A ,06 Staff Report September 2, 2011 Historic Review for 1141 E. Court Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Sarah Klemuk and Jeremy Faden, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 1141 E. Court Street, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of replacing basement windows, one of which to be enlarged for egress. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation GuidabnesibrAlterations 4.5 Foundations 4.13 Windows Staff Comments At the north end of the Longfellow district, the houses along Court Street are a collection of popular styles from the period between 1910 and 1920 when this neighborhood was rapidly developing. This two-story wood -frame Four Square is c. 1910-20; builder unknown. Although it has been clad in cementitious asbestos siding, and the porch has been enclosed, the house still retains much of its original feeling. The low pitched hipped roof with centrally placed dormer, the wide and short windows, and the broad porch with low roofline are common features of a Four Square. The applicants are planning to finish the basement and replace the basement windows. Jeld-Wen metal clad wood windows with simulated divided lites are proposed. The new windows would be custom sized to fit the existing openings. One window opening on the west side would be enlarged to accommodate an egress window; the existing width of the opening would not change, only the depth; a new window well is proposed. The guidelines recommend retaining the size, shape and location of historic window openings in foundations. If new window wells are required, the materials must appear similar to the existing foundation material, (4.5). The guidelines recommend repairing rather than replacing historic windows. If windows are badly deteriorated, replacement windows should match the type, size, sash width, trim, and mullion/muntin design of the originals. Metal -clad, solid wood windows are acceptable for replacements, with black the preferred cladding color. Adhered muntin bars are acceptable, snap -in muntin bars are not. And changing a window size to meet egress requirements is a recognized exception if it is the only way to provide the egress, (4.13). In Staffs opinion, the project is acceptable. Staff recommends that staff and Chair review the final window selection, and review the materials to be used at the new window well. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1141 E. Court Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: ■ Window specifications to be provided for review and approval; and ■ Information on window well materials to be provided for review and approval. yy �. .. ,m k • �yj r i Y R u +�N IP +rwxw s: s w w � • ;wmvAI 't y • II s 4WA, i j=M Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: / ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner Name: Email:. � --r --�>6"r-CO- NIP m l; Phone Number: al) U % — y 9 6 % Address: E �ro) Lh r'+ �T //►► J / rr�� City: (A C/ State: TI Zip Code: ri woes ��u firs,, +.) ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: ► VU i u.0 X'7 Lu Cr— Email: Address: City: Address: Phone Number: ( ) 2� 1 ` 2� 13 State: Zip Code: Proposed Project Information Use of Property: 1 L� I T I in Q— 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 ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: 1 Contributing 0 Noncontributing 11 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 rejected. ❑ 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 �I Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ 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 ❑ Reaair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Other: ❑ Product Information Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: 99 1 Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: t ©NC-1 �Y110 t L l -I inj 1Li &—Nk I S-1 I Kt 6 VV 1 [7VTI -I /1 --r 16 ppdadmin/histpres/app_for_historicreview.doc 6/11 Iowa city window & door co 51 Hwy One West Iowa City, IA 52246 Phone: (319) 351-3513 QUOTE BY: Liz SOLD TO: Sarah, Klemuk PO#: PROJECT NAME: REFERENCE: JEL13rWEN. QUOTE #:JLIZ01928 SHIP TO: LINE NO. LOCATION BOOK CODE QTY SIZE INFO DESCRIPTION Line- 1 Rough Opening:71 1/4 X 21 1/2 LLW Viewed from ExbeNor. Scale: i/4" = i' Line- 2 Rough Opening:34 1/4 X 22 1/4 :Z1 Viewed from Exberbr. Scale: 1/2" = 1' Main Line Item Frame Size : 70 1/2 X 20 3/4 Siteline EX Clad Mull Casement/Awning Product, Black Exterior, Pine Natural Interior, Nail Fin (Standard), Vinyl DripCap, 2 Wide 1 High, 4 9/16 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, PEV 2011.3.0.347/PDV 5.472 (08/02/11) NW Frame Size : 33 1/2 X 21 1/2 Siteline EX Clad Awning, Black Exterior, Pine Natural Interior, Nail Fin (Standard), Vinyl DripCap, 4 9/16 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Preserve Film, Argon Filled, Venting, Folding Handle, Chestnut Bronze Hardware, Concealed/Stainless Hardware, 2 Locks, DP 35, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Preserve Film, Argon Filled, 7/8" Bead SDL w/Perm Wood Black SDL, Light Bronze Shadow Bar, Colonial 3 Wide 1 High BetterVue Mesh Chestnut Bronze Screen, *Custom -Width*, *Custom -Height*, GlassThick=0.7095, PEV 2011.3.0.347/PDV 5.472 (08/02/11) NW QQ-2.8.0.755 cust-037000 Page 1 of 2 (Prices are subject to change.) IUZO1928 - 8/18/2011- 2:35 PM Quote Date. 6/18/2011 Drawings are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale. All orders Last Modified: 8/18/2011 are subject to review by JELD-WEN LINE NO. LOCATION BOOK CODE QTM SIZE INFO DESCRIPTION une- s Rough Opening:341/4 X 48 3/4 Frame Size : 33 1/2 X 48 Siteline EX Clad Casement, Black Exterior, CD44�;� f 1 Pine Natural Interior, o� Nail Fin (Standard), Vinyl DripCap, 4 9/16 lamb, 4/4 Thick, �'Z � 7Z►% Hinge Left, Viewed from Exterior. scale: 1/4" =1' Folding Handle, Chestnut Bronze Hardware, Concealed/Stainless Hardware, DP 35, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Preserve Film, Argon Filled, Combination SDL ( 1 3/8" Bead SDL Horizontal / 7/8" Bead SDL - Vertical ) Black SDL, Light Bronze Shadow Bar, Uneven 3 Wide 2 High ( 6 Rect Lite ) BetterVue Mesh Chestnut Bronze Screen, *Custom -Width*, GlassThick=0.7095, Clear 0pening:25.511w, 43.585h, 7.721 sf PEV 2011.3.0.347/PDV 5.472 (08/02/11) NW Drawing Number: --Required! Vs i Total Units: 3 QQ-2.8.0.755 cust-037000 Page 2 of 2 (Prices are subject to change.) ILIZ01928 - 8/18/2011 - 2:35 PM Quote Date: 8/18/2011 Drawings are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale. All orders Last Modified: 8/18/2011 are subject to review by 3ELD-WEN Staff Report September 2, 2011 Historic Review for 435 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Kim Hanrahan, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 435 Grant Street, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of a new 15' diameter pool with landscaping and fence. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.2 Site and Landscaping Staff Comments This house was built c. 1930, in the Colonial Revival style; builder and designer are unknown. It is a one story brick veneered structure, side gable oriented, with an enclosed sleeping porch on one end and a pergola on the opposite end, both possessing Craftsman detailing. A symmetrical three bay front fagade with round arched entrance creates a formal appearance. There are also three gabled dormers on the front. Most striking are the steeply pitched roof and massive end chimney, which are key stylistic elements of the design and point toward influence from Cape Cod Cottages. The house is on a corner lot facing Grant Street, with the garage facing Grant Court. The applicant is proposing to install a 15' diameter pool in the yard behind the house. This is an above ground pool that would be submerged 2' and landscaped. Fencing is required, and constructing new fencing to match the existing fences on the property has been suggested, although the current proposal is for a wood picket style. The guidelines recommend designing fences to be similar to historic fence styles, such as wood picket (painted), wrought iron or metal. The guidelines state that chain link, wire mesh or rail fences in locations highly visible from the street are not recommended. In Staffs opinion the location and design of the fence is the main concern for this project. Because this is a corner lot, the project will be visible from the side street. If the required new sections of fence cannot be custom built to match the existing fence, then staff recommends that all of the fencing around the pool be the same new picket fence, and that it be painted. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 435 Grant Street as presented in the application, with the following condition: ■ Provide fencing around the new pool that is painted and is either all picket style or all custom built to match the existing fence. 711 •` �" I . yy i • y.. A � iMr r iL e o y x.� s FA 4 Fy " y ' 'r l Applicatt Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: c� Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) Property Owner Name: 1�1TY\OI.Mr Email: Phone Number: 3 (9) 351A io 1Ze Address: 43 G GV'OA4— City: L ro G( (�� State: Lai Zip Code: 52-Zd}oo ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: 4e S�—e— 6L* Email: Address: City: Address: Use of Property: _ Phone Number: ( State: Proposed Project Information Date Constructed (if known): Zip Code: 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.pZ. 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: AContributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ 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 rejected. ❑ 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 ❑ 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 Other: 6LA %Y>r*P►L f Please contact the Preservation Project Description: Matnrialc to ha ilcarl- Exterior Appearance Changes: 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details ppdadmin/histpres/app_for_historicreview.doc 6/1 1 September 2011 Hello Current Historic Preservation Board Members, I have recently submitted a proposal for your approval for an above-ground/in-ground swimming pool. In the original proposal I planned on using the existing fence as a template to match for the required fencing that will surround the pool. Because installation will need to happen before the winter frost I am also asking you to approve the use of this style of picket fence. This fence is readily available and can be installed much more quickly. Ideally, I would like to use the existing fence design it may just have to wait until next summer. Thank you, Kim Hanrahan MSW, LMSW � y J CL, ,n 'XI cfl CD � cD � tl.= m cc CD 1ID � a O np� o ` �� <. N m o�oao m N - ;E! . i;: o o FD cr Ti r. V- oo4lcr U� M 902 - �.-,•�,, 1 I � Z Staff Report September 2, 2011 Historic Review for 416 Fairchild Street District: Northside Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Tom Scott, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 416 Fairchild Street, a contributing property in the Northside Historic District. The project consists of a new ramp at the northeast corner of the house, with the alteration of an existing window to provide a door to the ramp. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.3 Doors 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood 9.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.2 Decks and Ramps Staff Comments The story -and -a -half cross gable house form, bay window and art window (leaded glass) give this late 1890s house a Queen Anne cottage appearance. This house represents one of several architectural styles that can be seen in the Northside district, and historically it belongs to a period of construction activity in this neighborhood - during the last quarter of the 19th Century - that produced the popular vernacular houses of a growing middle class. The applicant is proposing to add a ramp at the northeast corner of the house, with the alteration of an existing window to provide a door to the ramp. The ramp is proposed to be constructed of pressure treated wood, with concrete footings. Proposed railings at ramp would follow the commission's guidelines for simple balustrades. Proposed new door to be out -swinging, 2' 10" wide, with half lite and ADA compliant threshold. There is little or no historic precedence for ramps, and the guidelines recommend that ramp additions be as unobtrusive as possible. Ramps may be approved that accommodate reasonable access and use by disabled occupants provided they do not significantly alter or detract from the historic character of the building. Building code requirements must also be met. It is recommended that ramps in historic districts be located on the side of the house, with grading and landscaping to soften the visual impact. Incorporating a ramp into a porch is also suggested, (5.2). The guidelines for balustrades and handrails apply to the ramp railings. The components of an appropriate balustrade for this house include square spindles that are 1-1/2 inches or greater in thickness, top and foot rails that are at least 2 inches in thickness, with the top of these rails slightly sloped to shed water, spacing spindles so that the balustrade is at least 40% solid, and painting exposed wood, (4.1). Note that pressure treated lumber should be allowed to cure for 6 -12 months before painting, (4.14). Regarding the existing window and proposed new door, the guidelines state that if an opening is to be relocated (altered) the alteration should not detract from the overall fenestration pattern, (4.13). New doors should include a wood screen door, and should be trimmed similar to the other doors and windows. Using a salvaged door of similar material, style, and appearance is recommended. Substituting a material in place of wood is allowed if the substitute material retains the historic style and appearance, and can be painted, (4.3). In Staff's opinion the plans for this project should include landscaping around the new ramp and/or skirting on the sides of the ramp. It would also be helpful to know what is planned for the existing walk at the side of the house. Trim for the new door should match the existing door trim, and product specifications/literature for the new door should be submitted and reviewed for compliance with the guidelines. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 416 Fairchild Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: ■ Provide plans for landscaping and/or a skirt on the sides of the ramp; and ■ Provide detail for door trim, and specifications/literature for the new door. iw Y. p II t I ■no �� s of ' ��'-_ __-__ . ,==�� N� __ . � __~-__^ ______ __ ____ _ 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 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect 5K Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: Email: / ` Phone Number: Address: ''l%10 / �t.�� 1 d City: (( State: Code: �1i(( Z: Contractor /Consultant Name:Rr'6.C"t6 Jh7JO, . r ``� - Email:., bH oh �.KJ �li�.t/� GEhone Number: (3(%) 631 Address: Of iIG-kwya City: L Bt,J c� y' j State: i Zip Code: 6a Dif 0 Proposed Project Information Address: 4A W ( I 5-� - Use of Property: /kei U 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: AContributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District 11 Nonhistoric C 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 rejected. Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) 04 Building Elevations 19 Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information 14 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 ❑ 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 ❑ Other: 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: L Exterior Appearance Changes: ppdadmin/histpres/app_for historiereview.doc 6/11 Eil E I%- 2 � � LLCW M �3 JA m 7 k�0 S� � 2 � 3 N a io E rn `Co Vxf y� ;C7 y'7 � � in C •C � SL V a d Q � �� ?z4 qp— cio V C � �_ M� R j� m _3G UT 3 4.0 vd- v C 4 p C"? 0 5LW� t`0 L;� Staff Report September 2, 2011 Historic Review for 332 S. Governor Street District: Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, the City of Iowa City, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 332 S. Governor Street, a contributing property in the Govemor-Lucas Street Conservation District. The project consists of re -roofing and installing new gutters, chimney removal, replacement of existing porch siding, new paving at the front entry, and a new privacy fence in the back. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.2 Chimneys 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.11 Siding 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts 4.12 Site and Landscaping Staff Comments The construction date for this house is c. 1850-60. The original one and one-half story limestone cottage was built with local yellow sandstone, and has seen several alterations through the years. Fenestration has been altered by closing two windows on the front fagade that provided light to the second floor, and a large dormer has been added as a replacement. Other fenestration has been altered and the front door may also have been moved. Comparable Iowa City houses from this time period include 410 E. Market Street, 119 Park Road, and 219 N. Gilbert Street. These old stone houses possess the classical qualities of symmetry, balance, and proportion that are characteristic of earlier Colonial style. This house has had two major additions to the rear, the first addition appears to be early 20th Century, and the second is late 20th Century. This house is part of the UniverCity rehab program and the applicant is proposing the following exterior work: re -roofing, with new gutters, and removal of the existing chimney; new siding on the lower portion of the porch on the south side; removal of the wrought iron fence at the front entry, and replacement of adjacent sidewalks; and a new privacy fence in back along the north property line. The guidelines recommend that new asphalt shingles resemble the texture and color of weathered wood shingles for roofs that had wood shingles historically, (4.7). Only built-in gutters require review, and this house does not have built-in gutters. The guidelines do recommend that new metal downspouts be placed vertically near the building corners, and painted to match the background wall or trim color, (4.6). Historic chimneys should be repaired rather than removed, especially if the chimney is prominent and important to the architectural character of the house, (4.2). At the porch, the guidelines recommend replacing deteriorated sections of siding with new or salvaged wood siding that matches the historic siding. In many applications, fiber cement board with a smooth finish is an approved wood substitute, (4.11). Regarding the site and landscaping, the guidelines recommend providing a sidewalk that connects the entrance door to the public sidewalk. Fences should be designed to be similar to historic fence styles, although the guidelines are more concerned with fences that are visible from the front of the property so there are no recommendations for the proposed privacy fence, (4.12). In Staff's opinion the proposed work is acceptable; product information for the roofing material and siding material should be submitted and reviewed for compliance with the guidelines. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 332 S. Governor Street, as presented in the application, with the following conditions: 0 Product information for shingles and siding to be reviewed and approved. t t i 10 Olt- :iAV �r G•_ r Li x r R �•4 ��. �'� JY ,�x •g L r `• ?s :f ,b I "o, Olt P14, 11"! vi I L 40 )F it AIM, ISKIIII 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 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook .eview For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) Property Owner Name: C! Tr OF t ow A . c 17Y DHVI D Fow'C-n S Email: Phone Number: ( ) 3 5-6- s- .2 3 3 Address: Ltlo je. tvASH rA16-TPA./ Si City: l o w R C "l'( State: ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: F-,QA AJK 1,14-Alisoq Email: Address: Phone Number: ( ) Zip Code: 5 a') `t O City: State: Zip Code: Proposed Project Information Address: use& t 33 6 &OLIAC4n/c9/Q Use of Property: StNGce Fit Mt C `/ A&Sl'-)&'n Al. Date Constructed (if known): 336 — 14 13 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 ❑ 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: XContributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric r Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials maybe rejected. ❑ 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 10 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.) §1 Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair 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: Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: ppdadmin/histpres/app_ br_historicreview, doc 6/11 CITY OF IOV7A CITY z.-. �=,Qcml M E M 0 RAND U M Date: August 19, 2011 To: Bob Miklo; Historic Preservation Commission From: David Powers Re: 332 & 336 South Governor The homes at 332 & 336 South Governor are part of the City's UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program and are going out for bid this week. 332 is a historic stone cottage with several additions done over the course of its lifetime. 336 is a four square that is largely intact and well preserved. Both homes will receive extensive interior remodeling to the plumbing, electrical, kitchens, bathrooms, hardwood floors, plaster, etc... In addition to these improvements, both homes need work to the exteriors to address deferred maintenance and deterioration. The home at 332 South Governor will have new gutters installed and be re -roofed with a dark brown, shake style laminated asphalt shingle. It is the opinion of Rehab staff that the existing chimney may prove to be unstable and infeasible to be repaired. Until work begins, the final determination cannot be made, but we feel that enough doubt exists that we would like permission to remove the chimney if it is determined that it cannot be saved. In addition to this, we would like permission to alter the siding on the side porch addition. The existing wood siding has deteriorated and animals have chewed away much of the bottom of the wall. We would like to cut the siding off several feet off the ground and replace it with a cement board siding. On the front of the home, we are going to remove the existing metal railing on the concrete stoop and redo the sidewalks for better access to the front door. We would also like to install privacy fencing along the north lot line in the back yard to screen off the parking lot of the next house. The home at 336 South Governor needs far less work to the exterior. We would like to remove the deteriorating precast concrete steps to the front porch and replace them with wood steps and railing that will complement the existing porch and rail. We will also replace the supports under the rear porch. We will be keeping the existing front door, but would like to replace the side and rear exterior doors. The replacements would be appropriate to the style of the home and be subject to City historic preservation staff approval. Staff Report September 2, 2011 Historic Review for 1130 Seymour Avenue District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, the Iowa City Community School District, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at Longfellow Elementary School at 1130 Seymour Avenue, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of window replacement on the west elevation of the gymnasium. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.8 Masonry 4.13 Windows Staff Comments This two story brick school building was constructed in 1917 from plans drawn by the architect G.L. Lockhart. The design is representative of the Neoclassical style favored for many public buildings of the period. This was one of three elementary schools in Iowa City by Lockhart, the others being Henry Sabin and Horace Mann. Both Sabin and Mann were located in older established neighborhoods, while Longfellow exemplifies the growth that was taking place in this new suburban area of Iowa City. The platting of the Rundell Addition in 1908 and the arrival of the streetcar line in 1910 drew new residents to this area. A new school was necessary to meet the needs of the expanding neighborhood. The building faces east, rather than south towards Seymour, which may have been done to provide visual focus for future residential development. The gymnasium and lunchroom additions on the rear of the building were built post -WWII. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing brick infill and windows on the west elevation of the gymnasium, and install new Kalwall translucent insulated panels. The Kalwall assembly also includes four hopper windows and two louvers. The design includes new structure at the window opening, but excludes removal of the original lintel at the top of the opening. The original windows were previously replaced; the new assembly is designed to fill the original widow opening. The guidelines recommend that replacement windows match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. Modern window types may be considered on a case - by -case basis, (4.13). Masonry repair may be necessary as part of this project and the guidelines recommend non-destructive cleaning and construction methods, and careful matching of the existing masonry color, texture, dimension, and hardness, (4.8). Although the original windows have been lost, the proportions and detailing of the window opening are characteristic of the post -WWII modern style of the gymnasium addition, and in Staff's opinion this should be preserved. A Kalwall assembly can be an acceptable option for window replacement, and this design would preserve the original window opening as well as provide energy efficiency and interior daylighting. In staff's opinion, the proposed design would be significantly improved with the new hopper windows located in a continuous band rather than just the four that are shown, and these windows should match the size of the original windows. Also, the new vertical battens should divide the assembly into five bays rather than the ten shown. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at Longfellow Elementary School, 1130 Seymour Avenue, with the following conditions: ■ Revise number and proportion of hopper windows, and battens; ■ Provide information on color of Kalwall components and prefinished louvers; • The above to be reviewed and approved by staff and Chair. i r E-1 Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: pp� Date submitted:.- 0__.,_/ Y / �� .,...,. ❑ Certificate of No material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ intermediate review ❑ Minor review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC mccts the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) Q Property Owner Name:-XDWA (!"%I Commu"t-r%1 SC'db6(- UISTIZIel- Email:Q:,�",k-Z• PJ%A10i95tLKr JA,VS Phone Number: (51% Coet�" 1420 -- Address: 50q S(>q lkl _ ! L2= City:X-Q.rJAC-I"CK State: 7—At Zip Code: 512A0 Er Contractor / Consultant Name: 'SIAM — hMRY. INC Email: MkgL(J Q„tnQ,!Bhi & 'i M�r.Lbe+ Phone Number: (31q) 3GA ^b22 7 Address: 03VIp '5605l,^ ST `-.s' V— *oO(M SCX�) City: r— State: -A Zip Code: 52g01 �461 Proposed Project Information Address: o Sv-or /JG- tt.OW at_ Use of Property: Date Constructed (if known): 1� 11 Historic Designation lq �"� A,dott'-1-� DIN (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark OR H This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District 9 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: N Contributing 0 Noncontributing 0 Nonhistoric J 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 rejected. ❑ Addition ('i"ypically 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 rep lacemcnt/construction, baluster repair, or similar. if the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) X Building Elevations ® Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ 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 ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: :�=M a r . r IF W WE i M' � _''it.i-_ �' i�� ','ter. • � • w. Materials to be Used: kpsL-toA L-i-- -rfeA, ?t.�ksue:; Exterior Appearance Changes: ppdadmirdhis(prev'app ror_hisloricrvicw.doc (01 5 I I I t n *71 f�- t- yy Ju- 41, ''o .. ,r .2. jf >r 3. Ilali' a. i s6 f 7 d1 _.� i X i e gsqlpy� AI ^I I„ �' A it t a I id Ff w .� � _a ;`ax' '. a �. - •.�, I ± r� I_. � I' •: � Yana a 3. a jll I �1 ��. I I "��.a � I III •,� 1 %� d+• - �.;+" 1 � 4 �� �. 1 ��!�� !! 1 J.1 I � . �I I ` 1 ,•j a� uj =F ::a. -'� ,ulr y.c �N:n. ,ha �` .rb [•"a: o:im ,__ _,__a 0 _4�J _w_ ._I_n_ „ 1333N10N3+3Nnla311HD6v AZAD-LLV|-lAIHS 2 p ° - ¢ { 2 \)' / ) \ } \(} \ \\\ \ / :§a _If 2 §&f 2 \§§ ) k t \2§ - :a ! a §s: , % w®, } ; �mz $ 2 !\po §dj 2 a E{§ g /2 k(k ( ( K�) § §\ §ue ,me \ ( .C) §/ Qzz / z \ k! /<� $ §26 ¥ (§d;9 § 2�\ §§ [§ ■ a§\_ } K� ƒ§/ 7 5�� ;,b k$ ` £j \(�}a • ® E� m a§Q B)§ k3 $ -®` %§5§» %} K )%\ _-2 `� ; agg2� k§ EllCl)\)k2% �)k2w ( >@w �; § )`�\2 2 &ff (2 a \k§w ,25±, § !ee a@ ! �& k §=oo§ Me § �£�` 663:w \ \§k of - 2[' §}\]§ ) }[�§($ \§\/j! k)§§ 2 §Q ) ;<oko2m� 2 ® � �� k = w w+w mVI3 mm _4 Aa EIO a« umwo Amv a &bIVI 2wO-13 N»wQw MOMIJONOI am2 am#n )!- j\ \� & Window • rurtainwall • Skylight • Canopy cai Since 1955 l 0 kalwall.com • daylightmodeling.com The ultimate daylighting solution for aging buildings... superior design and insulation allows Kalwall to pay for itself in energy, installation and maintenance savings! x m m Upgrade the energy performance, daylight- ing and aesthetics of any building. U = .05 with Kalwall+ Nanogelm 8 W� daylightmodel ing.com Now you can see accurate simulations of how diffuse daylight can effect your designs. There is no better way to calculate the impact and alternatives. C� L_J The Most Highly Insulated, Diffuse -Light -Transmitting System • Cuts Heating Costs • Reduces Air Conditioning Costs • Saves on Electric Lighting Costs • Virtually Maintenance -free • Shatterproof • Vandal -resistant A Unique. Daylighting Replacement Technology A total commitment for over 50 years to research and development, product improvement and innovation have positioned Kalwall as the standard setter in window replace- ment. The Kalwall Translucent Insulated Panel is the heart of this state-of-the-art system: a structural composite sandwich panel formed by permanently bonding specially formulated translucent fiberglass sheets to a grid core of interlocked, structural 1-beams. The fiberglass faces have an innovative weather -resistant, low -maintenance composition. Translucent insulation is available in various densities with insulating U-value options from .53 to .05. The Standard System is 2 X" thick and can be up to 4" thick. Kalwall Window, Wall and Skylight Replacements can be justified on their energy savings payback alone! Insulation U-value options from .53 to .05 (2.8 to .28 W/M2K) Light transmission ranges from 3% to 50% Solar Heat Gain coefficients from 1.0 to under .04 Fiberglass, aerogel or other insulation in various optional densities for extraordinary insulation Lightweight panel and time -proven Clamp-tite , installation system installs rapidly Kalwall has developed a sophistication in retrofit design, engineering and performance that clearly excels. While other systems sacrifice either most or all of the natural lighting with the use of opaque panels or required shading devices, Kalwall transmits an abundance of soft, diffused, natural light. A true sandwich panel for permanency, backed by over 50 years of experience Permanent glass veil erosion barrier architectural face is tough and needs little upkeep Grid core of precision interlocked I -beams may be thermally broken Interior shatterproof faces formulated to meet interior finish, flame and smoke requirements of the toughest codes Kalwall Systems are known for their total design flexibil- ity Wall and Window System options include: translu- cent panels, opaque panels, opening glass windows, lou- vers, spandrel panels and even explosion relief panels. Kalwall's own high-performance sash units provide ther- mal efficiency unmatched in a 2'/," unit. These systems pass all commercial requirements for an AAMA rated HP 1000 and HC 2000 sash, including wind velocities of 100 mph. �dlwdll+ u=.05 Kalwall iow u=.08 kalwall.com LJ �MM�Mft� Any building can be transformed into a brighter, healthier, happier place to work and learn! Kalwall upgrades the energy efficiency of a building and also delivers significant additional savings in maintenance and repairs. The net result is a true boost to the asset value of the property! You'll be amazed by the improvement both inside and out. Look at the "before and after" difference in this building. Fenestration is the weak link in the energy performance of any building. To put the potential fuel savings into perspective, consider the overall wall space your current windows occupy. It is not uncommon for 50% or more of a building's surface to be windows. It's easy to see that dramatically improving the insulation of such a significant portion of your building's surface would have enormous impact. Kalwall Window Replacements are over 30017o more efficient than insulated glass. Even Kalwall's standard panels outperform a solid concrete wall 16" thick! It is not an exaggeration to claim fuel savings of up to 40% following the installation of Kalwall Window Replacements. The savings in heating and cooling costs alone deliver a quick payback. But that's just the beginning of the economic advantages to Kalwall's Window Replacement technology. Repeated window maintenance costs are eliminated! Kalwall is shatter- proof... no more broken windows to replace! No more scraping, re -caulking and painting sashes. Savings are also realized with the elimination of cur- tains and shades and the associated maintenance and replacement costs. Even window washing becomes unnecessary as every rainfall cleans the smooth exterior of the panels, leaving a clean, streak -free surface. Kalwall also puts an end to condensation problems associated with glass. Skylight and Skyroof Replacements can be installed from the outside of a building, resulting in an absolute minimum of disruption. Panel assemblies are factory prefabricated to the maximum size and configuration possible. This preassembly of modu- lar units ensures prop- a er installation and eliminates joints. Installation time is much faster and always trouble -free, as job site cutting or fabrication is almost eliminated. Installation can be performed by Kalwall's local - contractor or a factory team. Installation is Faster, Less Disruptive and More Economical! 0 Since 1955 � Kal Daylight you can use... More and more studies show workers are more productive and children learn better and are healthier in natural daylight! The high-tech solution to glare, shadows and lighting that has revolutionized the way America works, learns, plays and lives! Kalwall is also computer screen friendly! In today's workplaces and classrooms, the issue of glare and harsh sunlight reflections off com- puter screens and monitors is overcome by the diffuse light properties of Kalwall. Harmful ultraviolet rays are also screened out. The result: an even wash of usable daylight that is easier on the eyes. Even on cloudy and overcast days, the atmosphere created by balanced, diffused day- light offers a positive effect on attitude and pro- ductivity. Although vents and windows can be incorporated into the design, an opening com- pletely filled with diffused light transmitting panels eliminates outside distractions that can capture wandering eyes. r Kalwall panels are available in a variety of stan- dard colors and shades. More dramatic effects can be created by coloring the unique, solid-state, translucent insulation during the manufacturing process. All -aluminum framing is available in a wide variety of architectural color finishes and treatments that are factory applied for greater durability. Kalwall exceeds all building code requirements, including S. Florida, New York City and Los Angeles, and carries UL and ICC-ES listings, as well as FM and CE approvals in its aresenal of options. KahwW1* See our "Bright Ideas" Web site! kalwall.com daylightmodeling.com Phone: 603-627-3861 •800-258-9777 (N. America) Fax: 603-627-7905 • Email: info@kalwall.com Kalwall is a registered trademark of Kalwall Corporation. Nanogel is a registered trademark of Cabot Corporation. This is descriptive literature and does not constitute warranties, expressed or implied. For statement of warranty, contact Kalwall Corporation. The TOP Ia ICcrl ,vall is t1r Rea R-20 1 Jcrrcri ricrr�li rlitillA, ciloicel 1 • Green, LEED 2• Glare -free saves energy for curtainsiforsed, usable daylight means 3• Reduced lightingshades no need costs and controlled 4' Highly insulating, superior solar 5• Maintenance- gain free.., no sera energy performance, U = .05 , Shatterproof and ping' painting or washing � Pre vandal -resistant Pre-engineered, permanent.. 8. Installs fast... over 50 one room Years experience 9. Lightweight,m at a time from inside low cost to or outside 10, Aesthetically buY, install and own Pleasing, a true upgrade with ?! 1. <g> Printed on Recycled Paper APPA= 0 2009 Kalwall Corporation Staff Report September 2, 2011 Historic Review for 109/111 S. Summit Street District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Clark and Barbara Smith, are requesting approval for a proposed new construction project at 109/111 S. Summit Street, a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. The project consists of a new 28' x 24' garage structure to be located 11' north of the existing duplex. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.12 Site and Landscaping 6.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for New Construction 6.2 New Outbuildings Staff Comments This is a new application for a project that was originally presented to the Historic Preservation Commission in July, 2011. The project has been re -designed and significantly changed. This existing duplex is a Prairie School -influenced house, built in 1928. It is two stories in height, topped by a shallow hip roof with deep projecting eaves. The front facade is symmetrical, with double doors at the center. A small porch roof, with a segmental arch detail and massive brackets, shelters the front entrance. Window treatment includes banded sash and casement windows and an interesting arrangement of upper and lower lights on the first floor windows. The siding is asbestos -cement, (original exterior finish may have been stucco). Due to topography, the building is sited nearly a full story above street level. The concrete stair that ascends from the:public sidewalk to the front entrance was constructed in 2010, replacing an older concrete stair in the same location. The applicants are proposing to build a new 28' wide x 24' deep garage structure to be located 11' north of the existing duplex. The new structure is designed to have two separate one -car garage spaces, with a center partition wall, and two separate rear entrances. This new garage would be set back approximately 5' from the face of the duplex, cut into the front bank, with a driveway sloping up from the sidewalk. The design includes landscape retaining walls on either side of the driveway and borders of brick paving. The clear height inside would be 12' 8", and the height above grade would be no less than 7' 9". The roof and eaves of the proposed new structure are planned to match the existing duplex. The design includes three ganged windows over each garage door. These would be metal -clad wood windows. Garage doors to be Series #145/The Ranch House Collection, from Overhead Door, or similar. Siding to be cement board with corner trim. The guidelines for Site and Landscaping (4.12) recommend providing parking behind the primary building when possible, and providing set back and screening for parking along the side of a primary building. Driveways should be similar to historic driveways in the neighborhood. The guidelines for New Outbuildings (6.2) recommend placing new outbuildings, including garages, to the rear of the primary building. A new outbuilding should be clearly subordinate in size and ornamentation to the primary building, while reflecting the style of the primary building or the style of historic outbuildings in the neighborhood. Garage doors should be simple in design, or in a style appropriate to the property. Double -car garage doors are discouraged. Adding trim around doors and windows is recommended. In Staffs opinion, the site restraints of this property dictate the location of any new garage, and while a new structure cannot be located behind or to the rear of the duplex, it can be designed to be compatible with the character of the duplex and the conditions of the steep site. Because it is so prominent, the design of this structure is more critical than a typical garage or outbuilding. Specifications for the windows, doors, and garage doors, and product information for the shingles and the siding need to be submitted for review by staff and the Commission Chair to ensure compatibility. Staff recommends that the new retaining walls be symmetrical, especially where each side meets the sidewalk, and that the north retaining wall should tie into the existing stone landscaping that runs parallel to the public sidewalk. Product information for the landscaping materials needs to be submitted for review. Also, if the retaining wall at the rear entry requires a guardrail, then the railing design should be reviewed. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 109/111 S. Summit Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: ■ Window, door, and garage door specifications to be approved; ■ Product information for shingles and siding to be approved; and ■ Product information for landscape materials to be approved. ,,f�i.J$*,Y tM ✓ y t, �t yW lcr��y� M 1E 'al 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: F� Date submitted: v / 1p- I / IL ❑ Certificate of No material Effect (Z 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. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Pro ❑ Property Owner Name: Email: / awls `711 t 8 < Address: Ze-I / el-e- Id Owner/Applicant Information lease ch=k primaw contact persoW . r/CO^Phone Number: ( ) ✓.C— / ' City:; `xh �C ( State: Z' Code: d Contractor / /Consultant Name: 41elL 13 /Za l zz_C Email:H[CfW tier � Ll 4% Phone Number: ( ) ��� 7910 Address: ! 7 L-f-( t�4 (A.(Ge K.e. ek_ f �' y^ City: GW/� (�/ � State: �L Zip Code: !!�2 Z Y 0 i� ProposedPro'ect Information Address: 116,111, _ '" " A1H7 ' 1;/7� Use of Property: AM le x 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 College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: AContributing 11 Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric 0 Application RegWrements 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 fd' Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information 2r Site Plans ❑ 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 ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: 6n*I'M416 a19-/,41-a- AOACe— Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: Ppdadmin/hispres/appforhistoricreview.doc July 12, 2011 � i 1 c� \ of E .� SR i— cn W Q W ry 2 3 RIGHT/NORTH ELEVATION LEFT/SOUTH ELEVATION 6y 3 F� N -2' 8"- 7' O' RETAINIING WALL UP 8R o v -12' 2" 3' 8' fll 2-8 2-8 2x4 FRAME WALL — 8'x72" CONC. WALL ON 16"x8' FTG. REINF'D W/ (2) *4 REBARS ----13' 2 1/4' 2x4 FRAME WALL ON Vx46" FROST WALL ON 16"xS" FTG. REINF'D W/ (2) #4 REBARS TO' GAR. DR. BUILDER TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS 3' 2 1/4' 9'x7' GAR. DR. 8 %.- —7' 4'- GARAGE PLAN i SCALE: 1/4" _ —0" 28' 0" MOTE: ADJ�USTMEN�TS �MA�Y BE � TRUSS MANUFACTURER ITO VERIFY ROOF nFSf(;N 3 Z" V 9--- Z o 0 i17 .ss J W W 2 N 3C Uo O Z ti, � d Nw y .niw< 'n < U 4A LLIL �. 0 N ~ Cc J W W LLOiDLLZ N w N � F-O LL LL S O V N t— C W O � C Oo a 3H O N V/ I T N z z w z LL O p cr O = �( y \ O O S v E O I N O 00 4D x N w 0 4 LU F N �U zm Cr! h- wo o� w f- d O a �- O O 2 h- O OJ 1L O O a Z -r z O VE 60 C, W .LOR 6 CURB LINE CENTER OF WASHINGTON ST. M GARB LINE ` , o b o GREEN AREA o � N , O T O 4-0" WIDE SIDEWALK f 56.61' ; it1F O 7-6 w GAPRRAGEED cn IJ1 I co o DRIVE ~ N 31'10` I� 27' 0' , �7' 9` BETAA N WALL Y I O / Z 6 I@ 1- 21 If < 2 4 J z j EXISTING , z m Ln Q DWELLING Lo o v v I U u oll T Lo EXISTING DWELLING NORTH 30' 0' , 7-0" 2P II `" —•—�— 5 0_ 1/2" 6 8" I 5 �• 30' 0---•; IOWA CITY ORIGINAL TOWNSHIP B.9 EAST 56'-0" OF NORTH 100'-0" OF OUTLOT #3 CLB DESIGN, MVB IOWA CITY. IOWA B-19-2011 I WAGNER BROS. LLC SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" FRANK WAGNER FILEst 3246-P i 2 yo ..n i C. ' -918 922 -'WE924 932----] w� � •10�2 I012� jpM 59 919 923 11 915 �0 �• to ��I loin �� i nc c'\vth @�c , May,:, (I too k� ek S h'n U U V Otwo in n 917 � 923 927 935 aUi�3�C4t- r'-� 1003 F-200 11 detadieJ acc:essor)-j bul Id; ri s m - j no+ etce 1 109-111 Summit Printed:Mar NET f'oR- C6�S12c,(eT�01�1 31, 2011 "e, iMwwt 4-Y, -111 South Summit Street ieliminary review for proposed garage v See memo by Jann Ream in parcel file, documents. The use may be treated as conforming by virtue of its zoning prior to RNC-12. It appears that the maximum footprint of a detached garage is 885 square feet. A front setback is required along both Washington and Summit. Minimum front setback is 15'. A 25-foot distance is required between garage doors and right-of-way. Owner indicates that garage will be accessed from Summit. Garage must be separated from principal building by 3 feet, minimum. Garage must be set back 5 feet from rear property line. Garage may not be located within either front setback, though parking is allowed in the front setback if the spaces are on a drive leading to the garage. Maximum curb cut for the drive is 30 feet. Maximum drive width at the right-of-way is 24 feet. Drive must be at least 3 feet from side property lines extended. There must be at least 20 feet from the curb cut and the end of the radius of the intersection of Washington and Summit. Total building coverage is limited to 40%. Lot size is 5900 square feet, so maximum building coverage is 2,360 sf. Assessor's office shows 1,200 sf of footprint for the duplex. This leaves 1,160 sf BUT the footprint of all detached accessory buildings may not exceed 15% of the total lot area. 5900(.15) = 885 sf. Taking into account a 25 foot setback from Summit (measured from property line) and 5 foot setback from rear property line, this leaves 59 — 30 = 29 feet of depth. 885/29 = 30. A 30-foot wide garage would fit in the area that is 3 feet from the duplex and 15 feet from the Washington right-of-way. ZONING ANALYSIS PER CONFORMITY OF 109-11 S. SUMMIT The property was originally built as a duplex and is currently a duplex. The current zoning is RNS-12 which requires 6,000sf (3,000 sf per unit) in order to establish a conforming duplex. The lot has 5,900 sf so, at first glance, it would appear that this is a non -conforming duplex and as such, it could not be enlarged. Owners want to add off-street parking which would be considered an enlargement. However, this property was down zoned from RNC-20 to RNC-12 in 2000. The Special Provisions of the RNS-12 zone (the RNC-12 zone was simply re -named to RNS-12 in 2005) state that if a property was conforming with regard to lot size and use prior to a re -zoning, it is considered conforming with regard to use and lot size. The RNC-20 zone allowed duplexes and required 5,000 sf minimum lot size and 1,800 sf per unit. The property was conforming under the RNC-20 zoning and is, therefore, considered conforming with regard to use under the RNS-12 zone. It can be enlarged as long as it can meet all other provisions of the code. In this case, the property owners want to add parking. As long as their plan is approved by the Historical Preservation Commission, a building permit for additional parking (underground or basement garage) can be issued. Jann Ream 6/28/2010 Historic Preservation Corninission 1,1 1. t � Ik, t, I(,,N i t _ir, I \ ..'..:'., MEMORANDUM Date: July 8, 2011 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Cheryl Peterson, Preservation Consultant Re: Certificates of No Material Effect, Intermediate Reviews, and Minor Reviews The Historic Preservation Handbook requires a report to the HPC at each meeting of any projects that have been approved administratively. Below are the projects approved since the June report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 1. none Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review 1. 1033 Seventh Avenue — one story addition to the rear of the house, (project subsequently revised) 2. 732 Grant Street — front window replacement Minor Review — Pre -approved items — Staff review 1. none lmva Otv Historic Preservation Comrni'SS1on ( iI[y 11.111, -110 1" A> :ish II �1I �II�'ct, 1O NN I( t I 1 I \. :122,10 MEMORANDUM Date: August 5, 2011 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Cheryl Peterson, Preservation Consultant Re: Certificates of No Material Effect, Intermediate Reviews, and Minor Reviews The Historic Preservation Handbook requires a report to the HPC at each meeting of any projects that have been approved administratively. Below are the projects approved since the July report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 1. 1029 E. Court Street - replacement of several sections of railing at the existing deck 2. 228 S. Summit Street - replacement of existing stucco on the front of the building at the first floor level, replacement of steel lintels at windows on the front at the first floor level Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review 1. 1208 Burlington Street — new 5' 0" x 5' 0" deck at the rear of the house with steps down to grade 2. 713 N. Lucas Street - replacement of stairs at the existing rear deck, replacement of rear storm door, replacement of basement door under deck, and replacement of three basement windows Minor Review — Pre -approved items — Staff review 1. none Cite Historic Presetwation Commission Girt I Lill, -110 I . W MEMORANDUM Date: September 2, 2011 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Cheryl Peterson, Preservation Consultant Re: Certificates of No Material Effect, Intermediate Reviews, and Minor Reviews The Historic Preservation Handbook requires a report to the HPC at each meeting of any projects that have been approved administratively. Below are the projects approved since the August report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 1. 1221 Sheridan Avenue — replace concrete patio with a new platform wood deck 2. 727 Brown Street — add new attic vents Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review 1. 822 Rundell Street — add new screen walls and a screen door at the existing front porch Minor Review — Pre -approved items — Staff review 1. none MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 2011 EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, Dana Thomann, Alicia Trimble MEMBERS ABSENT: Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Steve Yagla, Teri Toye, Marlys Svendsen RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA; There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1122 E. College Street. Peterson said this is a chimney removal proposal. She showed a photograph of the College Street house and added that it is a contributing property in the district. Peterson said that one really doesn't notice the chimney from the front of the house. She said that as one comes around the corner of the house, there is a newer, metal chimney vent that would stay, but the owners want to remove a cement -covered, masonry chimney. Peterson showed the view from the rear and said staff recommends approval. Michaud asked, assuming the chimney is removed, if it will be taken out all the way down to the basement. Wagner said it would be removed all the way down to the roofline. Peterson said she believes the owners want to take the chimney out of the attic and then stop at the floor of the attic. MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1122 E. College Street, as presented in the application. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Wagner absent). 923 S. Seventh Avenue. Peterson stated that this application involves a front entry area modification to a wing wall off of a porch. She said this house is a contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. Peterson said the proposal is to cut into the brick wing wall that comes off from the porch and add a gate and a path through the front yard to the sidewalk. Peterson showed a sketch of the project as one would look at the wing wall and pointed out what would be cut away. She showed where the gate would then be installed, with the edges of the brick then wrapped with metal that the gate would be attached to. Peterson showed a view of the wall from inside the steps. Peterson said that there are six of these houses that are all from the same builder and the same time period. She said that it was common to have the entry from the driveway. Peterson showed the similarities with the other houses. She said that staff hoped to find a way to achieve what the owner wants to accomplish without cutting into the wall. Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2011 Page 2 Yagla, the owner of the house, said that he has lived in the house since 1977. He stated that everyone comes to the back door when they come to the house. Yagla said that with some landscaping and a nice pathway, they could then replace the ground cover with a stone patio and then have the entrance through the gate and up to the front porch. Peterson asked Yagla about his plans to connect across the front. Yagla confirmed this. He said the neighbors have a sidewalk, and he just wanted to create another path at the front of his house similar to the neighbor's. Yagla said he wants to make it more attractive and more convenient to get back and forth. Peterson showed a photograph of the porch and said that it is closed on two sides. She said she had discussed with Yagla the area that is a potential paved patio area and that a sidewalk through the front yard could lead to that paved area. Peterson said that without the gate through the wall, one could still walk around and still have the entrance experience that is separate from the driveway. Yagla said that if someone would come to the house, he is probably not going to walk up that path. Michaud asked if it would be possible to add a direction sign at the front entry. She said it would be invisible from the street, but by the time that people get up the driveway then it would be visible. Michaud said it would be messy to cut that wall, and it's already caved. She said it should be stabilized, and she thought it might look a little choppy if its original design is altered. Peterson said cutting into it will definitely weaken it. She said the other concern she had is that it is only 27 inches, so that one would really have to bend over to get to the gate and the latch. Michaud asked the owner if he had talked to any masonry people about cutting the wall. Yagla replied that he had talked to Kalona Blacksmith and Welding, who has done masonry work, about the gate. Yagla said the blacksmith suggested that he come to the Commission first to see what would be permissible. Yagla said he has not had a mason at the site yet. Michaud said there is quite a two-inch gap on the left hand. She said she did not know what it would take to jack that level. Ackerson said that it is a very attractive entry to the house, and he would not want to see it lost. Michaud agreed. She said it might also seem more harmonious with the rest of the street to have an oversized shrub removed. Michaud said they might consider new steps at the front of the porch.. She said this would match the other houses, while still keeping the wing wall. Yagla said that over two houses to the right/north, there is something similar to what is being talked about. He also pointed out one house that has an enclosed porch. Michaud said that is what she was thinking. She said that it doesn't have to wrap around if you have too many steps. Peterson said there is variation along here. She stated they are all very much alike, but each one is a little bit different. Peterson said that some have a side entrance, and some have a front entrance. She said it is consistent that they don't have a sidewalk straight up to the house. Peterson said that could probably be done very nicely with a curving path up to the house. Miklo said the Commission appears to be headed in the direction of not changing the wing wall but looking for another solution, such as putting in a sidewalk and maybe cutting the curb to direct people to the side entrance or possibly exploring a center entrance, although that is not ideal. He asked the owner, given his concern about people being led to the back door, if a cut in the curb of the driveway and the curved path back to the street to direct people to that point would be an alternative that would work. Miklo said that no changes would then need to be made to the existing porch or wall. Yagla asked if there would then be any problem with still making a patio area. Miklo said there would not. He said that if Yagla wanted to solve the issue with landscaping, a permit would not be required, and the application could be withdrawn. Yagla added that he would also like to discuss the options with his wife. Peterson said that Yagla could work this either way. She said that one could either come up the winding path to the receiving area/patio and step down and around, or it could all be flush. Peterson said that if it were all at the same height, it might seem more like a continuation of the entrance. She sketched her ideas for Yagla. Michaud suggested Yagla look at a house on the corner of Bowery and Clark Streets, Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2011 Page 3 where there is a situation similar to this. She added that she did not know about having a winding diagonal across the lawn, because this is such a geometric type of house. Peterson said that separating the pedestrian path from the driveway is definitely possible without cutting into the wall. Trimble said she would also be far more comfortable not cutting into the wall. She stated that if someone bought this house later and he didn't want that path there it could be removed, but the wall cannot be replaced. Miklo suggested the Commission defer this to its next meeting. MOTION: Ackerson moved to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 923 S. Seventh Avenue. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. (Swaim and Wanner absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY STAFF AND CHAIR: 713 N. Lucas Street. Peterson said that this was an application that she and the Chair reviewed. She said she did not have the report available. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JULY 14, 2011: MOTION: McMahon moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's July 14, 2011 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Wagner absent). PUBLIC COMMENT: Section 106 Review and the Development of a Memorandum of Agreement for the Rehabilitation and Hazard Mitigation Measures for the Sabin School and 109 River St. Peterson said there were two notices that went out regarding adverse effect notification, but the Commission is to discuss the undertakings resulting from the relocation of the Art Building, Hancher Auditorium, Voxman Music Building, and Clapp Recital Hall. Female Teri Toye said that two meetings are scheduled for August 23`d to discuss the Iowa Memorial Union. The representatives from FEMA presented a synopsis of what they are expecting and undertaking and what the possibilities would be for the relocation of the University buildings, the new sites, and the effects on those new sites. Teri Toye stated that FEMA has determined that the relocation of the Art Building would require the demolition of a fraternity building at 109 River Street. She stated that the building has been determined to be a contributing element to the West Side Fraternity Historic District. Toye said that it has been determined that the District is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and that the demolition of the fraternity house would adversely affect that historic district. She said the fraternity house is also individually eligible so that two historic properties would be adversely affected with the undertaking to relocate the art building. Toye said that Hancher-Voxman-Clapp are being relocated to three different sites. She said that Hancher would be relocated to The University of Iowa River Valley Historic District that was evaluated by Marlys Svendsen. Toye said that it has been determined that the relocation of Hancher within that district that is eligible for the National Register would not result in an adverse effect. Toye stated that Voxman and Clapp are being relocated to two sites downtown. She said that the Iowa City Community Schools District Office Building, which is the Henry Sabin School Building, would be demolished as part of the process, and that demolition would be an adverse effect, as it has been determined that that building is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2011 Page 4 Toye said that the National Historic Preservation Act requires the execution of an agreement to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties when FEMA funds are being used. She said that in this case, because both projects involve the demolition of historic properties, adverse effects cannot be avoided or minimized, so FEMA's intent is to mitigate the adverse effects. Toye said that FEMA has determined that the fraternity and the Sabin School are Iowa City resources. She stated that FEMA was present at the Commission's meeting to take into account the views of the Commission on FEMA's efforts to resolve adverse effect. Toye said that Marlys Svendsen would discuss the process for evaluating resources within the area of potential effect. Svendsen said that the new art building is intended to replace the 1936 Works Progress Administration Building that was built for The University. She said the original building was designed by architect George Horner. Svendsen said the building later had additions put on through the 1960s and 1980s, and those additions were designed by New York architect Max Abramovitz. Svendsen said the site that has been selected by the University is adjacent to the current art building west, along the 100 block of River Street. She stated that it will be designed by Steven Holl, one of the architects identified in The University of Iowa River Valley Historic District. Svendsen said that Holl is a very contemporary architect. Svendsen said the site selection now requires demolition of the former fraternity house at 109 River Street. She showed some slides of the house, which is currently owned by the University and is used as an art studio for graduate students. Svendsen said it is the only one in the neighborhood on the south side of River Street, while the balance of the district is on the north side. Svendsen said the Manville Heights Neighborhood Survey was completed in 2010. She said it is a neighborhood that was platted in two separate subdivisions. Svendsen said an area was laid out that eventually housed a great variety of architectural styles and form. She referred to a list showing the types of architectural styles and the year the buildings were constructed. Svendsen said the fraternity house is one of a number of revival style buildings and is the only building of an Italian renaissance revival style. She said it was built in 1929 at the end of a significant period of development of the West Side Fraternity Historic District. Svendsen said the fraternity house is visible from the Manville Heights Historic District as well as the West Side Fraternity Historic District. Svendsen discussed the relocation of Hancher Auditorium, Voxman Music Building and Clapp Recital Hall. She agreed that there would be no direct adverse effect to historic resources with the relocation of Hancher. Svendsen discussed the relocation of the Voxman and clap and the new sites along Burlington Street. She said that as part of the construction, the current property owners will be offered the option of acquiring the former Sabin School site. Svendsen said the University is not necessarily intending to raze the building but is making the site available, either with the building in place or with the choice to have the building removed. She said that decision has not been made by the University. The new building sites proposed for Clapp and Voxman are not far from the Sabin Elementary School. Svendsen said the Sabin Building is an attractive building and is one of three designed by George Lockhart, an architect from Saint Paul. She said it was built in 1917-1918, and the other two schools designed by Lockhart, Mann and Longfellow, still are in existence. Svendsen said that the Sabin School was designed in a collegiate gothic style. She stated that it was named for Henry Sabin, who was the Iowa State Superintendent of Schools and a prominent educator. Svendsen said the building qualified for the National Register under criterion A for historic significance and criterion C for architectural significance. She said that it is individually eligible and is the last of the neighborhood schools in this neighborhood. Svendsen said the Sabin School is really quite intact on the exterior, except for the wall that was constructed across the front of the building that basically camouflages a series of HVAC and electrical Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2011 Page 5 equipment. She said the rear of the building has been modified and given a fake gothic revival entrance. Svendsen said, however, that this is still a substantial and important building and is quite intact. She showed photographs of the building. Ann Schmid discussed the next steps in the section 106 process. She said that after FEMA has identified a project, evaluated the area of potential effects, and evaluated the resources within that area, FEMA then goes through a process to develop a memorandum of agreement, a legal document outlining steps that FEMA will ensure are implemented to offset the loss of historic properties resulting from the undertaking. Schmid said that throughout the process, FEMA takes into consideration the views and comments of interested parties and the public prior to executing its document. She said the process consists of seven steps, which were outlined in the documents distributed to the Commission. Schmid said that the primary goal in the process is to have everyone involved in signing the memorandum of agreement familiar with and comfortable with the document he is signing so that all the mitigation measures stipulated and all the processes outlined are something to which everyone can agree. Schmid said that once an agreement has been reached, the scope of work for the mitigation measures identified is incorporated into the overall FEMA grant application. She said that in this case it involves funding for new facilities for The University of Iowa. Schmid said that this legally ties what has been identified in the memorandum of agreement (MOA) to the completion of the project. She stated that there will be two separate MOAs — one for the relocation of the art building and one for the relocation of Hancher-Voxman-Clapp. For the relocation of the art building resulting in the demolition of 109 River Street, Schmid said that the ideas presented to date include: a National Register nomination for the West Side Fraternity Historic District, which has been determined eligible as part of the Manville Heights study but has not been listed; salvage of architectural features from 109 River Street, including any original windows, interior and exterior doors, hardware, fixtures, and any salvage of historic building materials such as the clay tile roof; and other suggestions from consulting parties and the public. For the relocation of Voxman and Clapp Recital Hall and the adverse effects resulting from the demolition of Henry Sabin School, Schmid said the ideas presented include: the salvage of architectural features from the school, including the exterior ornamental limestone elements, interior features such as doors, windows, hardware; an expanded Iowa site inventory form; National Register nomination for the Horace Mann Elementary School, which has been determined eligible; supporting historic district signage within Iowa City; and other suggestions from the public. Schmid distributed forms for suggestions for mitigation. She asked that ideas for each of the two relocation projects be identified separately. Baldridge stated that Phi Beta Pi was his father's medical fraternity, but it was not in that building at 109 River Street. Svendsen said that one of the people who contacted her said he hoped the Commission would look to some of the projects that had been included in the Historic Preservation Plan. She pointed out that a lot of thinking has been done previously about ideas and progress, although she did not know if these ideas had been prioritized. Downing said that one of the biggest threats to the continued use of Longfellow and Horace Mann Elementary Schools is lack of accessibility. He asked if there might be any support for their continued use by supporting the construction of elevator systems in those two buildings. Toye said this is a unique situation in that The University of Iowa is the applicant for FEMA funds, but the resources being affected are Iowa City resources. She said that FEMA is inviting the Historic Preservation Commission to be a concurring party, if it chooses, but it does not have to be. Miklo said that because the Commission's next meeting is September 8th and the deadline is September 11th, there would be another opportunity to discuss this before submitting proposals. Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2011 Page 6 Michaud said she thinks that that before the meeting, she went to the fraternity house and talked to the next door neighbor. Michaud said the neighbor was concerned, because he had heard that the University was going to build a four-story building where the fraternity is now that would take up most of the lot. She said there is a glorious heritage tree on the site, which is either burr or soft white oak; a gorgeous, symmetrical tree. Michaud asked if the arches present on the fraternity and art building could be incorporated into the new art building. Schmid said that architect Steven Holl is designing the new Art Building, and the plans are substantially under way to ensure the completion of the project within the performance period of the FEMA grant and to get the University up and running. She said at this point, she did not believe those features have been included. Schmid said that it is a much more modern design. She said there has already been initiated a process that she went through with the State Historic Preservation Office, including tentative design plans and how they would work on that site in relation to the district surrounding it. Schmid said that while those ideas are tangible and sort of commemorative, they don't necessarily provide a benefit to historic preservation. She said it would be a new design all around. Schmid said that the University may be beyond that point, but other sorts of documentation of those features when it is time for that discussion might be in order. Burford asked about the role of the salvage barn and preservation. She questioned the hierarchy of the participants. Toye said the salvage barn could have an active role in the mitigation work. Schmid discussed how the process worked in Cedar Rapids and its salvage operation. Trimble asked if the Commission would like to form a subcommittee regarding this or if members would like to think about this for the next month and discuss it at the next meeting. Miklo asked for volunteers for a committee. Ackerson, Baldridge, Downing, and Michaud volunteered to be on the subcommittee. The consensus of the Commission was to have the subcommittee meet and present something for the Commission's consideration at its September 8th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 X 0 X X 0 X X 0 X 0 X X X X X X X X O O O X X X X X X X X X X 0 X X X X X X X X X M 0 X X X 0 X X X X N O M X X X X X X X a 0) N O) N a) N 0) N Q rn N Q rn N rn N rn N Q m N 0) N 0) N w CM co (M CM CM m cM CM ce) cM M H Q w 2 Z Y Z y w Y Q H w p m w N w W �e m J Z Z 3 G Z Q ZO F- J Q Q G Z O Q Q a G Q = J Q Z C7 a N Q G Z 2 0 H V J Q ui m QZ Q u. & Z E 2 0 m '0 0 0 0 IOZ C :;:I a) 00 y E; M 0-0 m.MQZ 0 C Q 11 n Z u ii W2 u XoOZ