Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-12-2011 Historic Preservation Commission
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, October 13, 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 C) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 518 Ronalds Street (chimney demo) 2. 713 N. Lucas Street (front door; foundation work) 3. 427 Clark Street (bedroom and mudroom additions) 4. 822 Rundell Street (laundry/bath and screen porch addition) D) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff E) Discuss FEMA MOA First draft of the Memorandum of Agreement, regarding the permanent relocation of Hancher Auditorium, Voxman School of Music and Clapp Recital Hall, and mitigation measures to offset the adverse effects to historic properties. Specifically, mitigation measures to offset the demolition of Henry Sabin Elementary School, and demolition of the former Alpha Sigma Phi House. F) Discuss correspondence regarding Roosevelt Elementary G) Discuss nominations for Historic Preservation Awards H) Consideration of Minutes for September 8, 2011 I) Adjournment (must be out of Harvat Hall by 7:15 p.m.) Staff Report October 7, 2011 Historic Review for 518 Ronalds Street District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Mary Sixt Jackson, is requesting approval for a demolition project at 518 Ronalds Street, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The project consists of the removal of a brick chimney. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.2 Chimneys 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Significant Features Staff Comments The Site Inventory for this house describes it as an American Foursquare with Colonial and Neoclassical influences. Builder and Architect are unknown, and no date is given for the construction, although it appears to be early 20th century. A prominent front gable and half -round window, wide fascia boards at the roof, and crown molding over the first floor windows give this vernacular house its stylistic expression. Sanborn maps reveal the house has lost its full -width front porch. The applicant is proposing to remove the chimney, which is structurally failing. This is a brick chimney with some mortar parging; it is located near the center of the main hipped roof. The chimney will be replaced with a metal cap for the water heater vent. The roof will need to be patched and shingled in this area. The guidelines recommend repair of unused historic chimneys, and disallow the removal of prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character of the building, (4.2). A Certificate of Appropriateness is required for the removal of architecturally significant components, including chimneys, on any structure within a conservation or historic district, (7.1). In Staff's opinion this chimney was never a prominent feature of this house, and removal now would be acceptable, especially considering its deteriorated condition. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 518 Ronalds Street as presented in the application. �r � 4 I ty , J ! t •. 'fit J' i E 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/liPhandbook 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. Prd ❑ Property Owner Name: Email: Address: a'tion Phone Number: City: l� r J { ` State: ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: Email: &d P x Y ei -Y-4 2 Address: Zip Code: '- City < f' %'��.. State: Zip Code: Proposed Project Information Address:' Use of Property:LGt 1 tl.� (Mai& arc ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR Date Constructed (if known): ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): I Brown Street I listoric 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: VV 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 pmject 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 Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: ppdadminthistpres/app. for_historicreview.doc 6/11 Staff Report October 7, 2011 Historic Review for 713 N. Lucas Street District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Paul Assman, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 713 N. Lucas Street, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The project includes replacement of the front door, and stucco/parging of the exposed foundation walls. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.5 Foundations Staff Comments This house appears to have been built in the early 20th century. It is one -and -one-half stories, with cross -gable roof, wood clapboard siding, and concrete block foundation. There are no stylistic details. Builder and Architect are unknown. The house has been altered with the addition of a partially enclosed carport on the south side. The front porch enclosure may be a later addition, too. This house is located in the Iowa City neighborhood traditionally known as Goosetown, and it shares in the associated history of an ethnic community of Bohemians who began arriving in the 1850s and settled in the northeast corner of town. Goosetown residents valued self-sufficiency, home ownership, family, patriotism, and the culture of their homeland. Their culture and practices left a mark on this area, where the continued presence of modest, vernacular houses, often with substantial gardens and small orchards, identify portions of this neighborhood as distinctive. The applicant is proposing the following work: • Replacement of the front door and removal of the screen/storm door, or replacement of the screen/storm only, • Coating the exposed foundation walls with stucco. The guidelines recommend traditionally styled replacement doors. Wood doors are preferred, although a substitute material may be approved if the substitute material retains the style and appearance of a historic door. A substitute material must also be durable and accept paint. Flush modern style doors are disallowed. Natural aluminum storm doors are also disallowed. Wood screen/storm doors are recommended. (4.3) For foundations, the guidelines emphasize the importance of correcting any drainage problems and any other potentially damaging conditions. Repairs and replacement work should match the existing materials in size, color, texture, composition, and joint profile. Covering textured block foundations with a cement plaster or stucco is disallowed. Painting masonry or concrete foundations that were originally unpainted is also disallowed. (4.5) In Staff's opinion, replacement of the existing front door and screen/storm door will be a noticeable improvement. A simple half-lite panel door would be appropriate for this house. Painted wood would be preferable. Regarding the foundation, it is staffs opinion that painting is a better option than stucco, and that proper repair and preparation for paint is the necessary first step. This foundation has both original textured block, and newer smooth -face block. There are various cracks, and some damaged units, and joints between old and new which were not properly toothed together. Trying to cover and smooth over the different block textures and joints may be very difficult, and it is likely the joints between old and new wall sections will eventually crack any new stucco finish. Because of the miss -match of different materials, and because there is so much exposed foundation wall on the walk -out side of this house, painting the foundation seems appropriate and would be another noticeable improvement. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 713 N. Lucas Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: ■ Provide product information for new front door(s), for approval by Chair and staff, ■ If not painting foundation, provide product information for stucco product and application methods, for approval by Chair and staff. A i All, ot n. it71, . - SA c Aff :f IT lisik --------------- 0 E 0 VOL E LE 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: _?/ .?I / / / ❑ 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 __._. ,amply with -all -appropriate codes -and be reviewed -by the building division prior to the issuat a op -.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) Cir Property Owner Name: 1` ✓V < i Email• :- eZ2 - ciref.�,CfPhone Number: Address: .2/.30 City: b" Contractor / Consultant Name: Email: Address: City: State: c. Zip Code: Phone Number: ( State: Proposed Project Information Zip Code: Address: 1 1i7 ��Cti S s Use of Property: 141111,14 / Date Constructed (if known): /9d Ci Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR j17 This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ,V 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 ❑ Govemor-Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: I ( Contributing 13 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 _....w..srnpe.of the Project aresufficienL) _ _ -- ❑.___BuildingElevations D _ 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 C)d Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. Pa Photographs 1W 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: /1 i�'iG�C.® / r"l!]! ✓ a/ter YrCJ•r/�" �i / %�%C/s� /7 f'i"•tivC _ S c _' /'YF�/7 dL7i'I✓ / /CJ rl d G� ! 'r Ti'sv t, s"J �y y/' ��csy r G�s-a .d �G".L7 �G .E' / / ��'"i7 G? � ram../ ,P�n ,,G�s. ✓ e/d �-- of Materials to be Used: / Exterior Appearance Changes: / J cL�i+� r ti �d CJ ✓ is N Y' //1 G �r�^ !i r� no � �/'� r �✓' �P1 j�`Y!�-t /` G l � /' iG •-ti � / -S ..<y+..+li/!J!-r"--.% .f/+/ ,`i �S iih �' .r-. U�J � 7`Cr/YJ � ry c✓! /O -7 ppdadminJhistprestapp for hisioricreview.doc 6 t t •� �6 ,`1�"`TORE4 3091 Phone: 3 19-358-9708 �� L�r+ IOWA CITY Fax: 319-358-9605 PAGE I 260-5 NAPLES AVENUE IOWA CITY, IA 52240-7609 GUEST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE #: 2184120 8/21/11 10:13 AM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION SKU 1 32" x80" E-10 R.H. steel door 4141236 Pre -hung in a 4 9/16" primed frame Adjustable sill Bored for deadbolt Rough opening 34 i/41'x92" Estimated lead time for this item is 14 days. ** rlsi�Je i l ill? Door Swing Standard Primed White Reak to Finish r This Mastercraft° door is ENERGY 1 121-11 P , i STAR® qualified. (Door is viewed fi•om the outside looking in.) *PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING" TODAY'S ESTIMATED PRICE • If the unit has glass, the glass pattern and style may vary $ 1 9 9 . 0 0 slightly from the picture. Door color, the background, and accessories are for representation only. Price is for all items on this page. Total price for all items $199.00 This " an estimate It is given only for general price infona6cin. This is not an otter and there can be no legally binding contract between the parties based upon this estimate The prices stated herein are subject to change I depanding upon the market conditions. The prices stated on this estimate are not firm for am time penod unless specifically "ftten oihensise on this form. The availability ol'materials is subject to inventory conditions i It ,ARDS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS INCURRED BY THE GUEST WHO RELIES ON PRICES SET FORTH HEREIN OR ON THE AVAILABILITY OF ANY OF THE MATERIALS STATED HEREIN ( \It intonation on this form, other than price, has been proaided by guest mrd \lenards is not responsible for aav erroro in the information on this estimate, including but not limited to quantity, dimension and gnalm Please examine this estimate carefully MENARDS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL, WRITTEN OR OTFIERI\'ISE THAT THE MATERIALS LISTED ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE BEING CONSIDERED BY'FHE GUEST, BECAUSE OF WIDE VARIATIONS IN CODES, THERE ARE NO REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE MATERIALS LISTED HEREIN MEET YOUR CODE REQUIREMENTS. Staff Report October 7, 2011 Historic Review for 427 Clark Street District: Clark Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Erica Damman, is requesting approval for a proposed addition at 427 Clark Street, a contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District. The project consists of a second floor bedroom addition and a first floor mudroom addition, both on the rear of the house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.4 Energy Efficiency 4.11 Siding 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts 4.13 Windows 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Staff Comments Built c. 1890; Builder and Architect unknown; this is a side -gabled, two-story frame house best described as Folk Victorian. Houses of this type are common in all parts of the country, and there are many scattered throughout Iowa City's historic neighborhoods. Generally, these are I -houses (one room deep) to which Victorian detailing in varying degrees of exuberance was added, (McAlester 1984: 309). The symmetrical three bay facade of this house is characteristic of this type. The original porch has been removed. The plan extends to the rear with a cross -gabled single story. The applicant is proposing a second floor addition which will extend up from the existing one-story space at the rear of the house. The ridge of the new cross -gable roof will align with the ridge of the existing roof. A one-story addition with shed roof is also proposed at the rear of the house, which will increase the building footprint by approx.. 8' x8'. Proposed materials include wood framing, asphalt shingles at new roofs, red cedar beveled siding, Pella aluminum -clad wood double -hung windows, and a wood panel door with divided glass half -Etc. The guidelines recommend placing additions at the rear of the historic building, using materials that are similar to the historic materials, and generally preserving the historic character of the existing building. Additions should be consistent with the existing building in massing and roofline, with proportions and roof pitch that are similar to the existing. Roof overhang, soffits and eaves should match the existing, with alignment between existing and new, and with matching trim and molding details. Key horizontal lines such as window head height and band boards should align. Offsetting the walls of an addition from the walls of the historic building is also recommended as a way to achieve proper proportion and preserve historic character. (5.1) The guidelines recommend asphalt shingles that resemble the texture and color of weathered wood shingles. (4.7) New metal downspouts should be placed vertically near the building corners, and painted to match the wall or trim color. (4.6) Wood siding and trim are preferred, although the guidelines allow wood substitutes; fiber cement board with a smooth finish is an approved substitute in many applications. (4.11) New doors should be traditionally styled, preferably wood, with trim at the door opening to match existing historic trim. Wood screen/storm doors are recommended. (4.3) New windows should match the type, size, profile, trim, and overall appearance of the historic windows, and new windows should be placed in locations that are consistent with the window pattern of the historic building. (4.13) Also applicable to this project, and easily achievable, the guidelines recommend building insulation for energy efficiency. (4.4) In Staff's opinion this project has been designed in a manner that is compatible with the existing historic house. The plans do not show the detailing of trim around the new door and windows, nor the materials and detailing at the new eaves and cornice, and it is staffs recommendation that these should all match the existing historic house. Staff also suggests that the applicant consider a black finish rather than white for the new windows. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 427 Clark Street as presented in the application, with the following condition: ■ Trim at new walls, windows and door, and materials at new eaves will match those of the existing historic house. References McAlester, Virginia & Lee 1984 A Field Guide toAmerican Houses, Knopf, New York. 1 ZI I Af- At f. • I,, F fi y �III� C> Q Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or For Staff Use: properties located in a historic district or conservation Date submitted: district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. T/_a/A Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of Certificate of No material Effect the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City ,❑, � Certificate of Appropriateness Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the ❑ Major review Planning & Community Development office at City Hall or ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review online at: www.icgov.org/HistoricPreservation 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. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) Al Property Owner Name: '5-/Z l C': L / / Email: 'C/l%%%%' Zad j, U10W4__eda- Phone Number: (3&7D . 0100 Address: `727- CL4%k-0- City:1!%L!%a C/� State: %A Zip Code: 522 VD ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name:., Wz' Email: Phone Number: ( ) Address: City: State: Zip Code: Proposed Project Information Address: 7� C la`k Sf: 10t, 1q- 611 A11, /A 522CIL) Use of Property:'OnMaN /oJ Id« Cam. `' Date Constructed (if known): Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District Clark Street Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District 0 Contributing 11 Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric Aft Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be postponed. Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient) XBuilding Elevations A Photographs 'ex 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: s� CPhd fl, dedry o YJ AOGa I-e, L !' �-eal-- a4 Komi-s //,' 1i7 /else/ %�i GIG�'�"ao Q�, �f7oh � �<Q� a�c 1t 04(se - Materials to be Used: .41t1 '! 11w1jf etlQaK, va6le 17&f Gvokwl e l!31 Woor caQ'�- /a b S/W/iY - Exterior Appearance Changes: ��`'����C�sQu�e Aet r 6dG . h494f 6& . (S°e- S%2l-tkS j o J Ppdadmin/hispres/appforhistoricreview.doc July 12, 2011 427 Clark Street Image List 1. Photo Facing Northeast 2. Sketch Proposal Facing Northeast 3. Photo Facing Southeast 4. Sketch Proposal Facing Southeast 5. Photo Facing East (Rear of House) 6. Proposed East Facing Elevation 7. Proposed North Facing Elevation 8.Overhead View 9. Site Plan 10. Example Photo of Poor Roof Construction 11. Proposed Building Materials- Windows 12. Proposed Building Materials- Door 13. Proposed Building Materials- Siding u 0 0 f7r. I 0 Ute� �DO�i� �asfi CW e5 ( ( 2 vc�-►,> AUG 2 g 2011 i �.. Ake AL �j1?)i�,_'r _ LI , i(OrIL NAV � p t- M F1i i r i ze n , R _ � r 1 j i el OK � r '� E �3C�4�•�GM ,�ob1'ttu!`� f6o,t. �a � _— __ _ '-- V P1 � � J cox ,aV4 CelOrc Jf �1'� - ,. JJIrr�N� R6e'k <ait�N�6� C-Vo,p J S'PAc6 1* w q q2? A R k 6 LD 1( - 0a So 3 Plans Reviewed for Construction atons By Ity of Iowa City f°'L�FJ F�L1lIC�`lll Pd� C t:+�% P�ir1'Y nit� r i:C I Lf-C (' iaLL CODE E)EFIC!i i,-,'CsIES - Failure to idt: intiny a OOJ ; during a review of plans does not ,,:I:aviate any obligation to comply wgi all applicable code provisions 1(�0to s�o M V 4RD0M ir'u•� f 1 AUG 2 9 2011 n � Axv- EX�S1'1N� 4 nv2AC 4 t i 9 {�ppp•ft9 d1�UIxyN wvin.N (�Iq 2,01 m t` _ f. ¢69txadl� 2 �. �XIcyTNI� lcl- r l"l �• E Y,1114� Too-e The traditional beauty of wood interiors with iaintenance-free Single Hung ;=1 .'D- Vinyl Single Hung • Insulated glass • Tih-in sash for easy cleaning • Screen included • Lifetime warranty • White Rough Openings: 403-080040833 24'W x 42'H 30'W x 72'H 30'W x 36'H 36-W x 42'H 30'W x 42'H 36'W x 48'H 30'W x 48'H 36'W x 54'H 30'W x 54'H 36'W x 60'H 30'W x 60'H 36'W x 66'H 30'W x 66'H 36'W x 72'H fY a �►. ice Vinyl Single Hung • EasyCareTM Zo-E insulated glass • Internal profile grilles with brickmould 'J" channel • Screen included • Lifetime warranty • White Rou h Openings: 24'W x 42'H 30'W x 36'H 30'W x 42'H 30'W x 48'H 30'W x 54'H 30'W x 60'H 36'W x 42"H 36"W x 48'H 36'W x 54'H 36'W x 60'H .�c une Vinyl Single Hung Select 100 Plus • low-E[glass with Argon gas • Insulated glass • Tilt -in sash for easy cleaning • Screen included • Lifetime warranty • White Rough Openings: 404-2100-21 24'W x 36'H 30'W x 60'H 24'W x 42'H 36'W x 36'H 30'W x 36'H 36'W x 42"H 30'W x 42'H 36"W x 48'H 30'W x 48'H 36'W x 54'H 30'W x 54'H 36'W x 60'H 4 rrw� I Cr-sdine , Vinyyl Single Hun • Zo-E insulateglass • TiR-in sash for easy cleaning • Brickmould 'J" channel • Screen included • Lifetime warranty • Almond Rough Openings: 404-5200.5215 24'W x 42'H 30'W x 36'H 30'W x 42'H 30'W x 48'H 36'W x 42'H 36'W x 48'H r ft_ 1J. Vinyl Single Hung �~ Repplacemen'Window • 3 114" pocket design, insulated Lo-E glass • Installs easily into an existing frame • Steel reinforced meeting rail • White Rough Openings: 404-9772-9782 24'W x 38'H 28'W x 62'H 28'W x 38"H 32'W x 38'H 28'W x 46'H 32'W x 65'H 28'W x 54'H 36'W x 38'H 28'W x 58'H exterior. Muni Double Hung —C Wood Clad Double Hung • Unfinished pine interior • Lo-E insulated glass • Tih-in sashes for easy cleaningg • White aluminum clad exterior • 4-9/16" jamb • 20/10 limited warranty Rough Openings: 404 4101-4290 24'W x 38'H 33-3/4'W x 57-3/4"H 28'W x 38"H 36'W x 38'H 28'W x 46'H 36'W x 46'H 28'W x 54'H 36'W x 54'H 28'W x 62"H 37-3/4'W x 41-3/4"H 32'W x 38'H 37-3/4'W x 47-3/4'H 32'W x 54'H 37-3/4'W x 57-3/4'H it w Vlnyyl Double Hung • Argon Lo-E insulated glass • TIft-in sashes for easy cleaning • Full screen included • Lifetime warranty • White Rough Openings: 404-2550-2568 26'W x 37'H 26'W x 41"H 26'W x 49'H 30'W x 41'H 30'W x 49'H 30'W x 57'H 34"W x 41'H 34'W x 49'H 34'W x 57'H imi "Clad ouble Hung J astT"" treated Pine Interior Lo-E insulated glass sash for easy cleaning aluminum clad exterior ' 'amb and screen included Rough Epenings: 404-2500-2530 26-1/8'W x 36-3/4'H 26-1/8'W x 40-3/4"H 30-1/8'W x 36-3/4'H 30-1/8'W x 40-3/4'H 30-1/8'W x 48-3/4'H 30-1/8'W x 56-3/4'H 34-1/8"W x 48-3/4'H 34-1/8'W x 56-3/4'H 38-1/8"W x 40-3/4'H I I JEr;vEty. Vinyl Double Hung Replacement Window • Lo-E insulated glass • Tilt -in sashes for easy cleaning • Includes full screen • Lifetime warranty Rough Openings: 404.0006-M9 24'W x 38'H 30'W x 58"H 28'W x 38'H 32'W x 38'H 28'W x 46'H 32'W x 54'H 28'W x 54'H 32'W x 62'H 28'W x 56'H 36'W x 38'H 28'W x 62'H 36'W x 54'H .vely at Crestiine provides the widest window and patio door offering at Menards® All -vinyl • units, vinyl exteriors with real -wood interiors, fiberglass and fully -extruded clad with real -wood interiors Crestline windows and patio doors. New construction, remodeling and pocket window replacement - Crestline has you covered. ® RE# 3091 Phone: 319-358- PAGE I OF 1 A CITY Fax: 319-358-960 2605 NAPLES AVENUE IOWA MY, IA 52240-7609 GUEST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE #: 2223811 9/18/11 7:15 PM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION SKU 1 36" x 80" 944 (SinglePane), Single Door, Wood Classic Wood Fir Unfinished 944 4000445 Right Hand Inswing Bore and Mortise, Add Deadbolt Bore 4 9/16" Primed frame Inswing Aluminum sill Satin Nickel Hinges No Kickplate 38 1/4" x 83" Rough Opening 40" x 83 3/4" Brick Opening ** Estimated lead time for this item is 14 days. ** inside outs -do Door Swing (Door is viewed from the outside looking in.) "PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING" TODAY'S ESTIMATED PRICE • If the unit has glass, the glass pattern and style may vary $ 4 1 5 • 1 !% slightly from the picture. Door color, the background, and accessories are for representation only. Price is for all items on this page. Total price for all items 1 $ 415.17 This is an estimate. It is given only for general price information. This is not an offer and there can be no legally binding contract between the parties based upon this estimate. The prices stated herein are subject to change depending upon the market conditions. The prices stated on this estimate are not turn for any time period unless specifically written otherwise on this form. The availability of materials is subject to inventory conditions. MENARDS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS INCURRED BY THE GUEST WHO RELIES ON PRICES SET FORTH HEREIN OR ON THE AVAILABILITY OF ANY OF THE MATERIALS STATED HEREIN. All information on this foam, other than price, has been provided by guest and Merards is not responsible for any errors in the information on this estimate, including but not limited to quantity, dimension and quality. Please waimme this estimate carefully. MENARDS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL, WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE THAT THE MATERIALS LISTED ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE GUEST, BECAUSE OF WIDE VARIATIONS IN CODES, THERE ARE NO REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE MATERIALS LISTED HEREIN MEET YOUR CODE REQUIREMENTS. Non,1 a1size. Get the warm rustic look with real wo,- -' siding ■ wood siding ■ Textured Plywood T1-11 rough sawn face • Grade stamped to ensure quality • 4' x 8' 145-1056,1140,1155,1179,1098 • 4' x 8' Grooved 8" on center treated 145-2400 • 4' x 9' Grooved 8" on center 145-11e5 )SEBURG :EST PRODUCTS uraTempO bugh composite face, will not crack or split /2"-4'x8' 'rimed composite face over Fir plywood 0 year warranty Itrong plywood inner core 'rimed and ready to paint 145-2500 ■ cedar shakes & shingles ■ Undercourse Machine Shingles Grooved • Utility grade 107.1012 • 18" primed 107-1025 R 0 8 E B U R 0 BRECKENRIDGE slwrla rat Premium Grade Plywood ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS Cedar Plywood Aw: • Rough sawn real cedar face •5/8"-4'x8' • Over sturdy Fir innerplies 145-2120 #1 Western Red Cedar Shakes Fancy Cut Red Cedar Shingles • 18" Medium 107-tom • 24" Heavy 107-1055 Fishscale 107-9784 Flat 107-9700 • Matching hip and ridge 1o7.1oeo Round 107.9726 Diamond 107-9742 85 Staff Report October 7, 2011 Historic Review for 822 Rundell Street District: Dearborn Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Rebecca Routh, is requesting approval for a proposed addition at 822 Rundell Street, a contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. The project consists of an 8' x 9' laundry room and half -bath addition, and a 12' x 15' screened porch addition, both at the rear of the house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.4 Energy Efficiency 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.13 Windows 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Staff Comments This house is Late 19th & Early 20th Century American in the Bungalow/Craftsman style. It was built in 1933; the builder's name was Boss. This house is typical of many bungalows built in this neighborhood during the 1930s. It features the entrance on the side gable covered by a relatively small porch with classical posts. Exposed rafter ends are seen throughout, including on the hipped dormer. The windows are grouped in bands of two or three, a common design element of this style. This neighborhood developed following the completion of the Rundell streetcar line in 1910 and the construction of Longfellow School in 1917. The neighborhood provided housing for both blue and white collar workers - the growing middle class - and new forms of transportation, including automobiles as well as streetcars, allowed residential development to take place farther from the central business district. Major development in this neighborhood was completed by 1935-1940. The applicant is proposing an addition on the rear (east side) of the house which will include an 8' x 9' laundry room and half -bath, and a 12' x 15' screened porch. A low pitched shed roof is proposed which will tie into the existing roof, covering both the porch and the laundry/bath room. Proposed roofing is rubber membrane. Exposed roof rafters will be similar to those on the house. Cement board siding on both the porch and the laundry/bath will match the existing siding on the house. Weather Shield single -hung wood windows are proposed for the laundry/bath. The porch will be a slab on grade, with exposed cedar framing. The guidelines recommend placing additions at the rear of the historic building, using materials that are similar to the historic materials, and generally preserving the historic character of the existing building. Additions should be consistent with the existing building in massing and roofline, with proportions and roof pitch that are similar to the existing. Roof overhang, soffits and eaves should match the existing, with alignment between existing and new, and with matching trim details. Key horizontal lines such as window head height and band boards should align. Offsetting the walls of an addition from the walls of the historic building is also recommended as a way to achieve proper proportion and preserve historic character. (5.1) The guidelines recommend asphalt shingles that resemble the texture and color of weathered wood shingles. (4.7) New metal downspouts should be placed vertically near the building corners, and painted to match the wall or trim color. (4.6) The siding and trim on a new addition should be similar in appearance and material to the siding and trim on the existing building. (5.1) New windows should match the type, size, profile, trim, and overall appearance of the historic windows, and new windows should be placed in locations that are consistent with the window pattern of the historic building. (4.13) Also applicable to this project, and easily achievable, the guidelines recommend building insulation for energy efficiency. (4.4) In Staffs opinion, the roof pitch on this proposed addition does not meet the guidelines, but it is a reasonable solution considering the configuration of the existing roof and dormer on this side of the house. The overhang of this new roof at the rear (east side) of the laundry/bath seems unresolved and may require a beam and corner post for both structural support and aesthetics, or the overhang at the laundry/bath may need to be pulled back, as it looks to be in excess of 4 feet. With the exception of these concerns about the new roof, all applicable guideline requirements appear to be met. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 822 Rundell Street as presented in the application, with the following condition: ■ Provide final drawing of new roof for review and approval by Chair and staff. 1*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 Planning & Community Development office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HistoricPreservation For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness Major review Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The Historic Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the Building Inspection Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. 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. Owner/Applicant Information lease check primarX contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: Email: C k-D Q CtCL - (ZO V�� , V i U;0.,•ELne Number: (�1�) ISR 1 d Address: XQ ]OPA Stat . ZipCode: ❑ Contractor / Cons'ul Name:�� Email: e(Cr"Sa ' �yV � ( ,Sl, (b�e Number:'?sk Address: \DC\.c\12 Ci Star Zip Code: l Proposed Project Information Address: z a --a V N 6@,� \ Use of Property: 'C,tSI Date Constructed (if known): Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District Clark Street Conservation District \ 1❑ 'N, Dearborn Street Conservation District 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 postponed. Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) -M Building Elevations —Ss Floor Plans Photographs '0. Product Information tl'- 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: �,p� 1 (� ,� �� 4 a to I to be Used: \ Exterior AppearanceL es: Ppdadmin/hispres/appforhistoricreview.doc July 12, 2011 as X` IaN,isaoMoj©suayoj!Aossn� Qj 0 uo!sIan d o`0— l ` "9 a uaa da ( )) sOsn aD } S O-VZZS D �'41!0'oMo1 oMo `A(! oMo uo u� as� Mo ti uno 'IJao10 t l9 '� IlaPund ZZ5 uoidppy�ubise(] ule8 Pue uegol!N ossn� Naew ulnod 0 0 .Y) X X W N U O 0- _0 a)C N N U U) 0 v N O 18" U Pantry (0) �o o o _ E lco co o O v x O XU �O V C L C a = O1,° sui8 Ino-pEnd E jalunoo 6uiplod _ m m a c U l()va CM Historic Preservation Cornmission Cm I Lill, ll(} stito, i m I i MEMORANDUM Date: October 7, 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 September report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 1. 304 Brown Street — replace cellar door 2. 528 E. College Street — maintenance of built-in gutters Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review 1. 930 E. College Street — replace window at bathroom on second floor on rear facade 2. 220 S. Dodge Street — replace front door 3. 1208 E. Burlington Street — new roof at rear porch, radon mitigation, (UniverCity project) Minor Review — Pre -approved items — Staff review 1. none MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA, IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, REGARDING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF HANCHER AUDITORIUM, VOXMAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND CLAPP RECITAL HALL, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 3(FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security proposes to administer Federal disaster'assistance through FEMA's Public Assistance Program pursuant to the Robert. T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.§5121-5207 (Stafford Act) through the; Iowa Homeland Security & Emergency Management Division (ZHSEMD) to the University of Iowa, (University) for the permanent relocation (Undertaking) of Hancher Auditorium, Voxman School of Music and Clapp Recital Hall (HVC),_University 'of Iowa, Johnson County, Iowa that were substantially damaged by flooding in June 2008, which resulted in declared disaster DR- I763-IA. WHEREAS, FEMA has determined that the Undertaking is limited to the locations selected for the relocation facilities, as the demolition of the original facilities' will be captured in a separate FEMA tinded undertaking, and that relocation site for Clapp Recital Hall may result in the demolition of the Henry Sabin Elementary School as a component of a purchase agreement between the University and the, current. occupant of the relocation site; and WHEREAS, FEMA, in consultation with the State Historical Society ,of Iowa/State Historic Preservation Office,,(SHSI(SHPO), has determined that the Henry Sabin Elementary School is individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and WHEREAS, FEMA has determined that =the Undertaking will have an Adverse Effect on 'htstoric;properties, and the SHPO has concurred with this determination in accordance with the Programmatic Agreerrment among the Federal: Emergency Management Agency of the Department 'of Homeland Security, the State Historic Preservation Office of Iowa, the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), executed October 16, 2009 and WHEREAS, FEMA in consultation with the`SHPO has determined that the ground disturbing activities associated with the Undertaking are limited to areas that have been previously profoundly disturbed, or have, been previously reviewed for archaeological potential and no archaeological investigation is required`prior to the commencement of the project; and WHEREAS,FEMA has notified the ACHP on August 8, 2011 regarding its intent to prepare a Memorandum of ,Agreement (MOA) to satisfy its Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) responsibilities pursuant to 36 CFR Part §800.6 (a)(1), and in a letter dated August 26, 2011 the ACHP has declined to participate, pursuant to 36CFR §800.6(a)(1)(iii); and WHEREAS, FEMA has invited IHSEMD as the Grantee, and the University as the Sub - grantee, the Iowa City Community School District (School District), and Friends of Historic Preservation as parties sharing responsibilities in the implementation of the mitigation measures stipulated in this MOA to become signatories to this MOA pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(c)(2); and WHEREAS, FEMA in consultation with the SHPO has invited the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission and Preservation Iowa to concur in this MOA, pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(c)(3); and WHEREAS, all references to time periods in this MOA are in calendar days and notices and other written communications to FEMA may be submitted by e-mail; and NOW, THEREFORE, FEMA, SHPO, IHSEMD, and the University agree that the Undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following; stipulationsin order to mitigate the effect of the Undertaking on historic properties. STIPULATIONS To the extent of its legal authority and in coordination with the SHPO, IHSEMD, and the University, FEMA will require that the following measures are implemented: I. Mitigation Measures A. FEMA shall provide funds through' IHSEMD to the University for an Electrical and HVAC Upgrade Study ;for Longfellow Elementary School in Iowa City. This study shall focus on issues of energy efficiency, production and distribution within the historic building. The Study shall take into consideration the fact that the building is listed on the NRHP and that all proposed additions and modifications to the building must be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The Study will incorporate existing School District resources and will identify components of the building that need repairs/updates to meet better energy efficiency and up-to-date necessary climate controls. The Study shall design a new heating,, ventilation, and air conditioning system to provide conditioned air to the entire building; design electrical upgrades to replace the existing service, panels, and also to support a new heating and air conditioning system. The Study shall include cost estimates for all recommended improvements. The following steps required to complete the Study must be concluded within twenty-four (24) months from the date of execution. 1. Upon execution of this agreement, the University and the School District shall participate in a meeting with FEMA, IHSEMD and the SHPO to discuss the requirements of the MOA specific to the successful and timely completion of the Study. 2. The University shall work with the School District to contract with an architect, engineer, design or historic preservation firm to produce the Study for Longfellow Elementary School. Prior to selection, the firm must demonstrate Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 2 - of 15 their past experiences working with historic structures, mechanical systems and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 3. The University, in working with the School District, shall ensure that a draft of the Study is submitted to FEMA, the SHPO and the School District for review and comment, submittals to SHPO must be hard -copy, single -sided. The consultant will afford FEMA and SHPO thirty (30) days to comment on the submitted draft Study. 4. The consultant shall make revisions recommended by FEMA and SHPO to the draft Study and resubmit the completed document to FEMA and SHPO. Final submittals to SHPO must be hard -copy, single -sided on acid -free paper. The University, the School District or the consultant shall submit electronic carbon copies to FEMA concurrent with any submittals to SHPO. B. FEMA shall provide funds to the University for an NRHP nomination for the previously recommended individually eligible Horace Mann Elementary School. The following steps required to complete the NRHP nomination must be concluded within thirty-six (36) months from the date of execution. 1. The University shall work with the School District to contract with the consultant of the University or School District's choice, provided that the consultant is qualified under the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Historian and/or Architectural Historian as determined by FEMA. 2. Once the University, or School District has selected the consultant for the Horace Mann Elementary School NRHP Nomination, the University or School District shall coordinate a meeting among the consultant, FEMA, IHSEMD and the SHPO to discuss the, requirements of the MOA specific to the successful and timely completion of the NRHP nomination. 3. During the research and development of the nomination, the consultant shall .review the NRHP Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPD) titled: Public Schools for Iowa: Grown and Change 1848-1966, and include any relevant information 'regarding the period of development associated with the G. L. Lockhart designed schools in Iowa City as related to this MPD. 4. The consultant shall submit the draft for the Horace Mann Elementary School NRHP nomination to the SHPO. Draft submittals to SHPO must include three (3) hard -copy single -sided documents. The consultant shall submit electronic carbon copies to FEMA concurrent with any submittals to SHPO. After all comments have been incorporated; the consultant shall submit the final NRHP nomination to the SHPO. Final submittals to SHPO must be hard -copy, single -sided on acid -free paper. The consultant shall attend the State National Register Nomination Review Committee meeting, and make any revisions to the nomination recommended by that body and any recommendations made by the National Park Service (NPS) after the SHPO has submitted the final nomination to the NPS. All comments and Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 3 - of 15 correspondence between the consultant and SHPO shall be concurrently carbon copied to FEMA. C. A Historic Preservation Specialist through IHSEMD shall coordinate with the University and the School District to document the Henry Sabin Elementary School in an expanded Iowa Site Inventory Form (ISIF). The following steps required to complete the expanded ISIF must be concluded within twenty-four (24) months from the date of execution. 1. Upon execution of this agreement, the University and the School_ District shall participate in a meeting among FEMA, IHSEMD, and the SHPO, to discuss the requirements of the MOA specific to the successful and timely completion of expanded ISIF for the Henry Sabin elementary School. 2. Once any on -site photographic documentation has been completed, the Historic Preservation Specialist through IHSEMD shall develop an expanded ISIF for the school. The form shall be submitted to FEMA and SHPO for review and comment. Submittals to SHPO must be hard -copy, single -sided and shall follow the recommended guidelines for completing an ISIF available through the State Historical Society of Iowa's website. 3. The Historic Preservation Specialist through IHSEMD shall make revisions recommended by FEMA and SHPO to the draft ISIF and resubmit the completed ISIF to FEMA and SHPO within forty-five (45) days from receipt of SHPO comments. Final submittals to SHPO must be hard -copy, single -sided on acid - free paper. The Historic Preservation Specialist through IHSEMD shall submit electronic carbon copies to FEMA concurrent with any submittals to SHPO. D. Should the University, ''during the grant period for the relocation of HVC, demolish the Henry Sabin 11 Elementary School, the University shall fund the sensitive demolition of the building required for salvage including the exterior limestone headers, door surrounds, and decorative elements located on the north, south and east elevations of the building, and any other salvageable materials identified prior to demolition. These salvaged elements will be transported to the Salvage Barn in Iowa City, managed by the Friends of Historic Preservation. The larger elements will be stored at the Salvage Barn for future use, perhaps as components of the to -be developed Iowa City Riverfront project, and the smaller decorative elements could be sold by the Salvage Barn, with the proceeds directed to their continued operation. The following steps required to complete any potential salvage must be concluded within forty-five (45) months from the date of execution. Should the University decide to retain or sell the building; the University must provide FEMA with written documentation stating the building's disposition and the following steps will not be required to satisfy the terms of this MOA. 1. Within two weeks of the University's decision to demolish the Henry Sabin Elementary School, the University shall participate in a meeting among FEMA, IHSEMD, the Salvage Barn and the SHPO, to discuss the requirements of the Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 4 - of 15 MOA specific to the successful and timely completion of the salvage of architectural elements from the building. 2. Prior to the demolition of the facility, the University shall coordinate with the Salvage Barn to identify all building elements to be salvaged. A list of salvage materials shall be developed and submitted to FEMA and the SHPO. 3. The University shall ensure that their demolition contractor deconstruct the Henry Sabin Elementary School in such a way that identified building features, including the exterior limestone elements are salvaged with minimal damage. 4. Once salvaged elements have been removed from the building, the University shall coordinate with the Salvage Barn for the delivery of all salvaged items. 5. The Salvage Barn shall provide FEMA and the SHPO a list of all materials salvaged from the Henry Sabin Elementary School and delivered to the Salvage Barn. II. Post Review Discoveries A. The University shall ensure that during any excavation and construction related to the relocation of HVC or the demolition of the 'Henry Sabin Elementary School, the contractor shall immediately ceasedemolition activities in the vicinity of the discovery should previously unidentified archaeological sites or unanticipated effects be discovered during implementation of the project. Personnel should take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the archaeological find(s) and/or avoid or minimize further unanticipated effects. B. The person or persons encountering such properties or effects shall immediately notify FEMA by contacting Ken Sessa, FEMA Region VII Regional Environmental Officer at 816-807-3296, and the SHPO at 515-281-8743. Construction in the area of such sites or effects shall`not resume until FEMA determines that the requirements of 36 CFR §800.13(b)(3) have been met. III. Anticipatory Actions A. FEMA shall not grant assistance to the University should it, or those acting on its behalf, engage in anticipatory actions with the intent to avoid the requirements of this MOA or any requirements of the NHPA, significantly adversely affecting a historic property to which the assistance would relate or, having legal power to prevent it, allow such significant adverse effect to occur. B. After consultation with the SHPO and the ACHP, however, FEMA may determine that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the University and shall complete consultation for the Undertaking. Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 5 - of 15 IV. Duration of Agreement A. This agreement will be null and void, unless amended per section VI of this agreement, if its terms are not carried out within forty-five (45) months from the date of execution. B. If any signatory to this MOA determines that its terms will not or cannot be carried out or that an amendment to its terms must be made, that party shall immediately consult with the other parties to develop an amendment to this MOA pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(c)(7) and §800.6(c)(8). C. The successful completion of each mitigation measure and the steps identified above will be the ultimate responsibility of the University to ensure that each project is carried out. FEMA will work with the University and their consultants to monitor and track the completion of the mitigation measures. V. Dispute Resolution A. If any objection or dispute should arise within the time frame provided by this MOA to any plans, specifications, or actions provided for review pursuant to this MOA, FEMA will consult further with the objecting party to seek resolution. B. If FEMA determines that the dispute cannot be resolved, FEMA shall forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the ACHP in accordance with 36 CFR §800.11(e), including FEMA's proposed, resolution of the dispute. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the ACHP will either: 1. Advise FEMA that it concurs with FEMA's resolution to the dispute; or 2. Provide FEMA with recommendations, which FEMA will take into consideration in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute; or 3. Notify FEMA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR §800.7(c), and proceed to comment. Any comment provided will be taken into consideration by FEMA in accordance with 36 CFR §800.7(c)(4) with reference to the subject of the dispute. "C. Any recommendation or comment provided by the ACHP will be understood to pertain only to the subject of the dispute, and FEMA's responsibility to fulfill all actions that are not subject of the dispute will remain unchanged. D. Failure to fulfill the terms of this MOA requires that FEMA again request ACHP's comments in accordance with 36 CFR §800.7. E. If FEMA cannot fulfill the terms of this MOA, it shall not take or sanction any action or make any irreversible commitment that would result in an adverse effect with respect to NRHP-eligible or listed historic properties covered by this MOA or that would foreclose the ACHP's consideration of modifications or alternatives to the Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 6 - of 15 Undertaking that could avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse effect until the comment process has been completed. VI. Amendments Any signatory to this MOA may propose to FEMA that the MOA be amended, whereupon FEMA will consult with all signatories to the MOA to consider such an amendment. 36 CFR §800.6(c)(1) shall govern the execution of any such amendment. The signatures of all the signatories shall be required for any amendment hereto to be effective. VII. Termination and Noncompliance A. If any signatory or invited signatory to this MOA determines that its terms will not or cannot be carried out, that party shall immediately consult with the other parties to attempt to develop an amendment per Stipulation VI, above. B. If within thirty (30) days an amendment cannot be reached, any signatory may terminate the MOA upon written notification to the other signatories. Once the MOA is terminated, and prior to work continuing on the undertaking, FEMA must either (a) seek to resolve the adverse effects pursuant 'to 36 CFR §800.6(b) or (b) request, take into account, and respond to the comments of the ACHP under 36 CFR §800.7. FEMA shall notify the signatories as to the course of action it will pursue. VIII. Execution of the Memorandum of Agreement Execution of this MOA by FEMA and implementation of its terms are evidence that FEMA has taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on historic properties, and that FEMA has satisfied its responsibilities under Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA and the Section 106 implementing regulations'. Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 7 - of 15 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA, IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, REGARDING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF HANCHER AUDITORIUM, VOXMAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND CLAPP RECITAL HALL, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA EXECUTED: SIGNATORY FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY By: Date: Kenneth Sessa Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region VII Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 8 - of 15 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA, IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, REGARDING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF HANCHER AUDITORIUM, VOXMAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND CLAPP RECITAL HALL, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA SIGNATORY STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA By: Date: Barbara Mitchell Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 9 - of 15 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA, IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, REGARDING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF HANCHER AUDITORIUM, VOXMAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND CLAPP RECITAL HALL, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA INVITED SIGNATORY PARTY IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION By: Date: Dennis Harper State Public Assistance Officer Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 10 - of 15 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA, IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, REGARDING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF HANCHER AUDITORIUM, VOXMAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND CLAPP RECITAL HALL, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA INVITED SIGNATORY PARTY UNIVERSITY OF IOWA By: Date: Donna Percy University of Iowa Risk Management Director Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 11 - of 15 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA, IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, REGARDING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF HANCHER AUDITORIUM, VOXMAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND CLAPP RECITAL HALL, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA INVITED SIGNATORY PARTY IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Date: Patti Fields President Iowa City Community School District Board of Education Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 12 - of 15 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA, IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, REGARDING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF HANCHER AUDITORIUM, VOXMAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND CLAPP RECITAL HALL, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA INVITED SIGNATORY PARTY FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION By: Date: Helen Burford Director Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOA1 Page - 13 - of 15 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA, IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, REGARDING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF HANCHER AUDITORIUM, VOXMAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND CLAPP RECITAL HALL, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA CONCURRING PARTY IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION By: Date: Alicia Trimble Chair Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 14 - of 15 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA, IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, REGARDING THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF HANCHER AUDITORIUM, VOXMAN SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND CLAPP RECITAL HALL, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA CONCURRING PARTY PRESERVATION IOWA By: Date: Steve Frevert Board Member Hancher Voxman Clapp Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 15 - of 15 Cheryl Peterson From: John Thomas <johnfredericthomas@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:58 AM To: teri.toye@dhs.gov; ann.schmid@dhs.gov Cc: Pascoe, Judith M; Sponsler, Claire; Sarah Clark; alliegnade@gmail.com; Sharon DeGraw; Cheryl Peterson; Bob Miklo Subject: Draft Memorandum of Agreement: Mitigation Measures October 4, 2011 Ms. Teri Toye, Historic Preservation Specialist, FEMA/DHS-Iowa Closeout Center Ms. Ann H. Schmid, Historic Preservation Specialist, FEMA/DHS-Iowa Closeout Center Subject: Draft Memorandum of Agreement for the Permanent Relocation of Hancher Auditorium, Voxman School of Music and Clapp Recital Hall, University of Iowa, Johnson County, Iowa Dear Ms. Toye and Ms. Schmid, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the Permanent Relocation of Hancher Auditorium, Voxman School of Music and Clapp Recital Hall, University of Iowa, Johnson County, Iowa. The Northside Neighborhood Association enthusiastically supports revising the draft MOA mitigation measures, thereby providing funds through the Iowa Homeland Security & Emergency Assistance Act to the University of Iowa for 1) an Electrical and HVAC Upgrade Study for Longfellow and Horace Mann Elementary Schools and 2) a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination for the previously recommended individually eligible Horace Mann Elementary School. Longfellow and Horace Mann Elementary Schools are vital parts of Iowa City's heritage. As they approach their 100th birthdays in 2017, they continue to play an important role in the lives of our children and community. The energy study and NRHP nomination of Horace Mann will help prepare them for their second century of public service. Sincerely, John Thomas Northside Neighborhood Coordinator Robert G. Dostal 326 Douglass St. Phone 338-8789 21 September, 2011 Alicia Trimble Historic Preservation Commission 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City IA 52240 RE: Roosevelt Elementary School Dear Alicia: Iowa City IA 52246 In my opinion, Roosevelt enjoys the same architectural significance among schools as does the Price -Swisher house among residences ("Nineteenth Century Home Architecture of Iowa City" P.53, Margaret N. Keyes, University of Iowa Press, 1967). The school board plans on closing and relinquishing Roosevelt pending public comment that would give the board a viable reason for retention. It is a plausible assumption that the board will act on a synthesis of ideas, the most favorable from the public point of view being architectural restoration of the school and a scholastic use in the re -structured school district. My own reaction to the facility is that in the beginning it was a little brick pile. The pages that follow describe my own version of what would constitute restoration. It was suggested later that my thinking be overlaid with a sober professional appraisal of the building's architectural merit. The board could then choose between fanciful thinking and expert opinion. If you were to visit the school on a school day, it would be advisable to call the day before and arrange an opportune time. How long the building remains open after dismissal is probably geared to after hours use. Phone 688-1155. For weekend access, contact Superintendent Steve Murley at 688-1000. If Mr. Murley asks for a copy of your report, please send it to him and a copy to me. Mr. Murley would probably appreciate having all comments in hand as of November 7 so he can assemble a final presentation to the board in early December. It would be wonderful if you folks would survey Roosevelt because the school board would have a solid criterion for whether or not to include architecture in its final decision. Thanking you in advance, I remain: Very truly yours, Robert G. Dostal cc Sarah Swisher encl. Robert G. Dostal 326 Douglass St. Iowa City IA 52246 Phone 338-8789 09/19/11 TO: Patti Fields, President, ICCSD Maria Swesey Tuyet Dorau, VP Sarah Swisher Karla Cook. Supt. Steve Murley Sally Hoelscher Mary Knudson, Miller -Orchard Assoc. Jeff McGinness Other friends of Roosevelt Elementary RE: Restoration and continuation of Roosevelt Elementary Dear Folks: The presentation of the ICCSD five year facility plan is an exercise in junk writing. But when one has succeeded in navigating the fog, the school board agenda is simple and sensible: acquire additional classroom space and improve the achievement of assorted catagories of children. These goals are so simple that any socio-economically disadvantqaged and ethnically lopsided child struggling with with a high poverty level can understand them - after he has slogged through the mud. The question is not "Whether Roosevelt?" but "What does the little brick pile have to contribute in the new order?" The answer is simple: classroom space where achievement is improved. Roosevelt is not an ordinary elementary. It is a complex variable. The real part is its subtle architecture which extends across the school ground and beyond. I stare at Roosevelt, it stares back at me, and we both weep. The imaginary part is that Roosevelt is not an institution. It is the largest family on the block. Eighty years ago, it was the only family on the block, but it was a family. One does not tamper with such an arrangement. The enclosed document is the outcome of my struggle to find a spot for Roosevelt in the new show. My thinking may be endorsed, altered, or abolished. My goal is to dope it out and prod everyone concerned, whether on the board or in the constituency, to react. I hereby appoint Superintendent Murley as the project principal. He will receive and synthesize comments, make corrections deemed prudent by his judgement and expertise, present a final proposal to the board for its approval, and we will all sing a loud amen. Thank you and good luck, BobC�03r_2 G�� - Dostal Summary Proposed Strategic Facilities Improvement Plan 2009-2014 Iowa City Community School District OICCSD lo,%Va City Community School District SUB -PLAN FOR ROOSEVELT ELEMENTARY SEND COMMENTS TO SUPERINTENDENT STEVE MURLEY, ICCSD 509 S. DUBUQUE ST. IOWA CITY IA 52240 \%�\ �»�+: � \ ? � � °� � » � � � � � � .� !; � .«,_«.� ., � �:� ƒ \`,} \ \\ ^ . � � � %`� � k � � »� \�� � § <\ d\ y§� �. .. \?� » l� _\�� §�������\� Addendum to the ICCSD Facilities Improvement Plan 2009-2014 Proposal for the Restoration and Continuation of Roosevelt Elementary Robert G. Dostal September 15, 2011 Roosevelt Elementary is one of the distinctive schools brought into being in the 1930s under the leadership of ICCSD Superintendent Iver A. Opstad. Roosevelt and its Iowa City High School compliment are both architectural classics. Situated on hilltops facing into the town, both began with farmland in their backyards. City High, sprawling and majestic; Roosevelt, diminutive and cute. City High faces into town from the east; Roosevelt faces into town from the west. Sentinels, watching over the minds of the city,s young people. If one or the other were missing, the school district would suffer from architectural lopsidedness. The second grade apple orchard, tear drop driveway, and nature trail in the floor of the ravine, give Roosevelt a mystique, which is enhanced by the tradition of affection between students and teachers reported in the May 13 Daily Iowan and June 8 Press -Citizen. One does not defile Roosevelt and ultimately run over it with a bulldozer anymore than one would defile a Grant Wood painting and ultimately toss it into the trash. Restoration of Roosevelt would seem within reach because of the diminutive size of the original structure together with early additions that are faithful to the original style. Roosevelt is not the World Trade. Center. Continuation of Roosevelt as an elementary is not without challenge but finding a place for it in the re -structured school district would be a worthwhile effort. Revenue Sources: The per annum unrestricted portion of the endowment fund An-Approx. $1.5M per annum diversion of "District wide additional projects" funds. Arrange restoration in annual increments so it may be supported from the above sources. The additional advantage of incremental restoration is that it may be carried out without closing the school. Attendance Area. Deprive Roosevelt of its administrative identity (but not its name) and attach it to nearby Ernest Horn. Assign, Horn grades K-2 to Roosevelt. This arrangement would insure that the second grade apple orchard remains in the custody of the second grade and the comparativly small Roosevelt classrooms would be utilized by small children. Roosevelt would serve the Horn attendance area, which is presumed to have been adjusted to attenuate ethnic and socioeconomic lopsidedness. Practicality. Assorted additions to Roosevelt over the last 60 years suggests an ongoing need for additional elementary capacity in southwest Iowa City. Retention of Roosevelt would provide tomorrow's classrooms today. Architectural Restoration will be used in place of "remodel" or "rebuild." There was no need to define those terms in the body of the plan because of the decision to pass over remodeling or rebuilding in favor of new construction elsewhere. (Continued next page.) Details of Architectural Restoration. The first order of business is to gEtt rid of the gremlins in the portion of the complex being saved. Make structural repairs as needed, clear the storm drains, fix the climate control system, attend to plumbing and electrical needs, and so on. The next task is to demolish the baby boom extension on the back of the building along with the four free standing structures and haul the rubble to the dump. We will now stand.outside the back door to the gymnasium and walk around the building counter clockwise. Diagrams (1) and (2) on subsequent sheets clarify the picture. When the end of the gymnasium is reached and the classrooms begin, pay particular attention to the style of the windows and the brickwork and wall caps above the windows. We stroll around the south end of the building, past the end door, come around the front and reach the facade. We observe that from the gymnasium around to the facade, there is perfect continuity of style. But we did in fact pass a corner infill that did not come into being until 20 years after the original building. That will stay. The facade is intact except for the arches. The center arch is undefiled but the side arches have been bricked in and equipped with small rectangular windows. Knock that out. On either side of the center arch, there are walls forming an abbreviated corridor leading to the first of two entry doors. Push the walls back until they are flush with outsides of the end arches. We have now recovered the shallow veranda (1). The entrance way consists of an outer door, cold air trap, and inner door. The outer door was flanked with two large norman windows that came as close to the floor as they dare without being fallen into. We have also returned the rooms that flank the arches to their original thin inverted L shape. Use one room for the janitor closet and the other for supplies. Move the school counselor to another location. The two vase -like ornaments at either end of the arches could be replaced with lien heads, the ancient Christian symbol of scholarship. The ground immediately in front of the entrance would be better off without the crude asphalt surface. Purchase 5 norman windows, two for the veranda and 3 to take with us on the remainder of our journey around the building. Notice that on the north side of the facade, the wall cap is no longer smooth concrete but sheet metal. Replace the sheet metal with smooth concrete. After we pass the facade, we are strolling past a corner infill and wrap around. We walk around the wrap around and encounter a small porch on the north end of the building. Knock that off, jerk out the door casing, and brick in the space according to the standard of workmanship that prevails in the brick -in of the gymnasium windows and boiler room windows. We reach the back of the building (2) and notice an enormous hole left by the removal of the baby boom extension. The roof is supported by 5 support columns, meaning that there are 4 spaces between columns. Brick in the spaces, leaving room for the three norman windows. The 4th space shall accomodate the handicapped entrance. One would want to dress up the doorway such that it gives the impression of a 4th norman window, differing from the others in the sense that it reaches the ground. Entering the building through the handicapped entrance, we notice a place to our left for a handicapped friendly rest room (next page.) To create the rest room, the faculty work room next door would need to be reconfigured into an L shape. It is doubtful that load bearing walls would be involved. Ancillary space vs. classroom space is beyond the scope of this proposal. We are standing in an L shaped corridor, which we will fashion into a tribute to Iver A. Opstad. The ceiling of City High's Opstad Auditorium is actually an optical illusion. The lovely chandeliers hang from nowhere. We will create the same illusion, complete with chandeliers, in the Roosevelt corridor. Bring the faculty, staff, and children together with an interior decorator to give the interior much needed taste. The cleaning people can advise against inappropriate fabrics. The gymnasium need not be touched. Iver A. Opstad's miniature palace of learning has been restored. The stem of the distinctive tear drop driveway is crudely paved with asphalt. Jackhammer the asphalt and replace with brick. Replace the split log and bailing wire fence separating the driveway and the sidewalk with an all metal 4 tier brunswick green chain fence complete with brass caps on the fence posts. Remove the storage shed near the second grade apple orchard. Give it to the neighbors. Spruce up the brick utility bungalow on the southeast corner of the school yard. Call together the faculty, staff, children, and landscape expert to decide on the school ground. Through forestry and perennial maintenance free foliage, it may be possible to eliminate lawn mowing. Having created a miniature paradise of learning, we return to the three arches. On the right, as one enters the building, he notices a smooth concrete plaque embossed with the names of the school board members of the time and Superintendent Opstad. On the opposite side, we place a duplicate plaque with the names of the present day school board members and present day superintendent. z FLOOR PLAN OF ROOSEVELT SCHOOL ORIGINAL BUILDING 1951 ADDITION 1953 ADDITION 1961 ADDITION Ora' .i� A A,P0 ! MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Kent Ackerson, William Downing, Alicia Trimble STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Jeremy Faden, Mitchell Kelchen, Sarah Klemuk, Josh Moe, Andrea Rauer, Thomas Scott RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson McMahon called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA; There was none. CONSENT AGENDA: Certificate of Appropriateness — 30 N. Clinton Street. Peterson said that this church is a City landmark at the corner of Clinton and Jefferson Streets and is in the Jefferson Street Historic District. She said the project would involve removing the existing sign and replacing it. Peterson referred to a mockup of what the proposed new sign would look like. Peterson said that staff feels this is acceptable. Rauer, a representative for the church, said that it became apparent over the winter that the sign needed to be replaced. She said the church would like to take the sign down and release the two beautiful windows that are blocked by the sign that was put up 50 to 60 years ago. Rauer said that the proposal for the sign is in the packet. She said it would be a very vertical look for the front of the church. Rauer said they want to match the stone archways and around the windows. She said she has not discussed this with a sign maker until she was certain this was headed in the right direction. Swaim asked about the plexiglass. Rauer said that corner is in a very high traffic area. She said they didn't want to have something that has to be constantly replaced. Rauer said the new sign would actually be smaller than the old one. She said it has two faces and would fit right up against the tree at the corner and would not in any way impede the triangle needed to see at the corner, as it would meet the five-foot required setback. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 30 N. Clinton Street, as presented in the application. Male seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0, (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble absent). Historic Preservation Commission September 8, 2011 Page 2 CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1141 E. Court Street Peterson said this is an alteration project in the Longfellow Historic District. She said it involves the replacement of all of the basement windows with metal -clad wood Jeld-Wen windows. Peterson said the windows would be a good fit except one of them, which would have to be extensively changed to accommodate an egress unit. Peterson showed photographs of the west -side window that would require a window well. She showed the other windows that would be replaced. Peterson said the application seems acceptable. She said she will still need confirmation on the number of windows and what the window well material will be. Klemuk, one of the owners of the house, said they could use stucco around the top of the window well to match the appearance. She said the basement walls are all stucco -covered. Klemuk said they have talked with their contractor about satisfying code. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1141 East Court Street, with the conditions that the window specifications be provided for review and approval and the information on the window well material also be provided for review and approval. Litton seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble absent). 435 Grant Street Peterson said this property is on the corner of Grant Street and Grant Court in the Longfellow Historic District. She showed the front of the house, which faces east, and coming around from the north side looking into the back yard. Peterson said this is an application to install a swimming pool in the back yard. She said it is an above -ground pool, but it is going to be cut down and submerged two feet. Peterson said the concern with this application is the fence and the design of the fence around the pool. She said the applicant was originally going to match the existing fencing. Peterson showed the current fence but said she does not think it is high enough to meet the code requirement. Peterson said that at this point, the applicant is planning to use that but also finish out the fence with a picket fence that she showed to the Commission. Wagner asked if the applicant knows that she might have to have a fence up to six feet high, for insurance purposes. Peterson stated that she checked the City Code requirements, and Iowa City only has a four -foot fence requirement. She said she did mention that to the applicant, who said her insurance agent is advising her. Peterson said staff recommends the original style of fence. She said that if that can't be replicated, then staff recommends that the new fence be installed to match the existing. Michaud asked if it is 15 feet in diameter and about three feet deep. Peterson said it is two feet in the ground. Miklo said the applicant intends to put the pool two feet in the ground and then berm up around. He said that one would not see the metal edge sticking above the ground. Historic Preservation Commission September 8, 2011 Page 3 Miklo said staff would not advise having two different styles of fence. Swaim said that the one style seems to work well with the house. Baldridge asked if the current fence would remain. Peterson said it could be salvaged if it was raised up to meet the code. She said the way it is now, she did not think it would comply. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 435 Grant Street, provided the fencing around the new pool is painted and is either all picket style or all custom built to match the existing fence, and it complies with regulations. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0, (Ackerson. Downinct. and Trimble absent). 416 Fairchild Street Peterson said this proposal involves the addition of a ramp. She said the property is in the Northside Historic District. Peterson showed a front view of the house and the west side. She said the window at the far back is the window that would be converted to a door. Peterson said that is where the ramp would land, and then it would ramp back and down into the back yard, which she also showed a photograph of. Peterson said there is another door that would stay as it is. She said the ramp would be on the right-hand side and referred to the plan in the packet. Baldridge said the staff report states that the project is for a ramp at the northeast corner of the house. Peterson replied that that is an error. Peterson said that everything seems to meet the guidelines here. She said that information regarding the door and the door trim is missing. Peterson showed the window that would be converted into a door, and it is her understanding that the window well would be left as it is. Baldridge asked if the egress would then be directly west on the back wall. Peterson said it would not. She said there is a plan; there would be a landing at that door and then it ramps down to the north, where there is another landing and then there is a little bit of ramp that stretches back. Swaim asked about the design of the handrail for the first landing and if it would match the wooden railing on the front porch. Peterson said that when she spoke to the contractor, he was using the guidelines for handrail design and the simpler version, similar to the other. Scott, the owner of the house, said what he would probably do, unless it is identical to the front, if he changes it for the ramp, change the front to match the ramp. He said he doesn't really like what is on the front anyway. Scott said the wood trim/baluster is flat, so the snow sits on it so that it has to be painted every year. He said if that doesn't match with what he is proposing to use on the ramp, he will change out the front porch. Scott said the three questions he gleaned from the staff report were the sidewalk to the west, landscaping plan, and the door trim. He stated that he plans to take the sidewalk out in front of the evergreen bushes there and then come around and skirt the west side of the ramp and come in back behind the ramp in the backyard so that the sidewalk is separate from the ramp. Regarding the landscaping, Scott said it would be his preference to probably do a vegetative buffer in front to the south, maybe skirt lengthwise the west side of the ramp. He said he does Historic Preservation Commission September 8, 2011 Page 4 not like the skirt totally, because then animals get caught underneath. Scott said he would certainly want to screen at least from the flat ramp, the deck, down to the ground on the south side. Scott said the sidewalk will then go on the west side. He does not think there will be enough room between the sidewalk and the ramp to do a vegetative buffer on the west side. He said he might skirt that. Swaim asked if the landing would stand out to the west farther than the bay window. Scott said he assumes that is true, because it is probably about not any more than 30 inches there between the foundation and the sidewalk. Swaim said the vegetation there, that will make the ramp a lot less visible. Scott stated he did not want it above the flat part of the ramp; he does not want a tree or two trees, because he doesn't want to block the vision for security reasons. He said he would put low evergreens, on the bottom — a couple of evergreens or whatever it takes. Scott said he does not know yet what kind of door will be used. He said he may go with a solid core, wood exterior door and paint it to match the house or the trim. Scott said the contractor is proposing an insulated half-light, steel door. He said he is not sure that is what he wants to do yet. Scott said the only thing he objects to in the staff report is where it refers to, "...new doors should include a wood screen door." He said that from a standpoint of access for a handicapped person, he does not really want a screen door here. Peterson said she was pulling out every applicable guideline. Scott said he does not have problems with the question on the sidewalk, which will be done, the landscaping plan, or the door trim. He said he will submit something to staff regarding the door and the door trim. Scott said he takes pride in the north end and also takes pride in the properties he owns. MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a proposal for 416 Fairchild Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: provision of plans for landscaping and/or a skirt on the sides of the ramp and provision of detail for door trim and specifications/literature for the new door. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0, (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble absent). 332 S. Governor Street. Peterson said this property is in the Governor/Lucas Street Conservation District and is one of the Univer/City projects. She said the house was built in the 1850s. Peterson showed a photograph of the house and said the stone house faces left. She said the back has multiple wood frame additions. Peterson said the project includes reroofing, new gutters, most likely the removal of the chimney, siding repair on the south side porch, removal of the railing at the front and construction of a sidewalk out to the shared driveway. Baldridge asked if the sidewalk that extends would be removed. Peterson replied that is not in the plans, and there are no steps to it. She said there are no plans to replace the stairs there. Historic Preservation Commission September 8, 2011 Page 5 Swaim asked if the cement pad would remain but not the railing. Peterson confirmed this. Peterson said it was suggested to her that the first wood frame section could have been as early as the stone. Wagner, the contractor for the project, said one of the concerns is whether the chimney should be taken down or not. He said the little window underneath the eave on the gable on the second addition facing south will be gutted. Wagner said he will probably also be gutting the room next toward the front, and when he does that, he will be able to see what is underneath, and when he does that, he'll have a good idea if that might be as old. Swaim asked if this is the original chimney. Peterson said they are not certain. She said it has no modern-day function. Baldridge asked about the front door. He said the lintel would seem to be part of the original. Baldridge said then the other place in the corner obviously held another entrance. Peterson said the big dormer on the front also is not original. Michaud asked if there is any way to move the electrical wire around to the side of the house so it is not so prominent. Wagner responded that he believes it will have to stay. Swaim said she does not have any problem getting rid of the chimney. Wagner said the antenna will be removed along with the chimney. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 332 South Governor Street with the condition that the product information for shingles and siding be reviewed and approved. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0-1, (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble absent and Wagner abstaining). 1130 Seymour Avenue. Peterson said this property is the Longfellow School. She said the gymnasium addition is on the west side of the school and was constructed in 1954. Peterson showed a before view as submitted by the applicant. She provided a photograph from a week ago, showing masonry repair and where the opening has been cleaned out. Peterson showed another view demonstrating the relationship to the rest of the school. Peterson showed a drawing from the original document, demonstrating how the window would have been built originally. She said the square panels were probably fixed, and the lower panels were operative. Peterson said that one of the products being proposed for this includes Kalwall, a translucent insulating panel with a grid look. She said the upper two corners are louvers, and she believes they are mechanical. Peterson said there are four operable hopper windows. She said there are ten vertical battens. Peterson said the staff recommendation is that the same material, maybe in different proportions, replicate the original look of the building. She said staff recommends emphasizing the five bay, not the ten, and then instead of just the four windows across the bottom, do a Historic Preservation Commission September 8, 2011 Page 6 window all the way across, more like the original and probably a little taller to match the proportion of the original. Kelchen, the consultant on this project, said they would like to minimize the number of operable windows because of air flow. He said the vertical battens would match the color of the panels, (can't hear), and on the alternating ones. ( Peterson said that Kalwall can put fixed windows in too; they don't all have to be operable. Peterson showed a sample of the product. She showed what would be the expressed grid look, just like the drawing. McMahon said it is nice to see they are not just bricking this in like so many schools have done. Wagner said that what was there before looked pretty bad. Swaim asked Kelchen if he is proposing insulated glass for the top. Kelchen said the top windows would all be insulated glass. Kelchen said that the insulating/R value of Kalwall is seven, whereas a window is going to only be about two to three. Swaim asked if the clear windows would stand as they are now, rather than as in the drawing. Peterson confirmed this. Wagner said the drawing just shows four. Peterson said she is comparing it to the original drawing in the packet, where there were ten windows across. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 1130 Seymour Avenue with the following conditions: revision of the number and proportions of hopper windows and battens, specifically that there be ten windows across the bottom, as in the original; that the applicant provide information on the color of Kalwall components and prefinished louvers; and that the above is to be approved by staff and chair. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0, (Ackerson. Downina. and Trimble absent). 109/111 S. Summit Street. Peterson said this is a resubmission of a garage application for a property in the College Hill Conservation District. She stated that the property is a duplex on the corner of Washington and Summit Streets. Peterson said the new garage would go to the north of the building. She showed a close view of the location where there is a steep bank. Peterson said the garage would be eleven feet to the north and would be set back from the face of the duplex five feet. She said the driveway would have to flow up from the sidewalk. Peterson said there is a mistake in the plan in that there are not meant to be double hung windows. She said there would be three. Peterson said there would be a partition wall down the center of the garage with one stall for each tenant of the duplex. Peterson said the eave height is seven feet nine from the finished grade at the duplex. She said what is different from when the Commission looked at this before is that there is no upstairs studio space; it is just a very tall garage. Historic Preservation Commission September 8, 2011 Page 7 Wagner, the contractor on this project, said the biggest change is that before the design had one pretty much staying at street grade or sidewalk grade going into the hill and in order to not have the roofline be three feet from or at the level of the bottom of those windows, that's why they thought to put a second story on it to get it up so it is at least halfway up the building. He said that a number of engineers looked at it and decided that it would just be way too much dirt to come out of there, and it was just too big of a project. Wagner said the engineers decided that one can come up — there is a house just to the south of this one that has a driveway that comes up, not as much as this one will but in an acceptable fashion. He said without having the garage sit so far into the hill, he shortened it up and pushed it back farther so one can drive up and get into it but still have the roofline where it was before. Peterson said that is the west elevation, and the driveway will be pretty steep. She said the back elevation in the packet shows a step down and retaining walls to the back doors. Wagner said the plan was drawn presuming that it would be ten feet into the ground, but now it might only be four, so it will have fewer tiers requiring the retaining wall. He said there will be the limestone walls, but because there won't be so much concrete everywhere, they thought they would put just pavers along either side to break it up a little bit so that it will be concrete, brick, and limestone retaining walls. Swaim asked if the ones going off to the left are a terrace, and Wagner confirmed this. Baldridge asked if the garage is just taller. Wagner confirmed it would be taller and would contain a storage loft. Baldridge asked about the access planned from the west. Wagner said that is no longer in the plans. He said there is no longer really a reason for it. Miklo asked Wagner if it would be possible to put brick down the center to kind of match the two sides. Peterson asked about the 30-inch railing requirement. Wagner said that there is a black railing on the duplex, so whatever railing he uses on the garage will be fabricated to match, with the same color, material, and design. Swaim asked about getting from the garage to the house. Wagner said that most of the walking would be inside the garage, and there will probably be only one step outside. Michaud asked if this garage is being constructed to fulfill a parking requirement. Miklo said the parking was grandfathered in for the duplex. Wagner said the owner wants parking, no matter what, as there is currently no parking available there. MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a garage addition for 109/111 South 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; product information for landscape materials to be approved; and use of brick trim in the center of the drive to break up the concrete. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0- 1. (Ackerson. Downing, and Trimble absent and Wagner abstaining). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY STAFF AND CHAIR: McMahon stated that this information is available in the packet and asked if anyone had additional comments. DISCUSS COMMISSION'S RESPONSE TO FEMA: Historic Preservation Commission September 8, 2011 Page 8 Regarding suggestions for mitigation measures to offset the adverse effect 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. McMahon said that members of the Commission formed a subcommittee regarding this item. Peterson said that Baldridge, Downing, Michaud, and Wagner were on the subcommittee. She said the subcommittee discussed two FEMA projects — the one that would result in the demolition of the Sabin School and the other resulting in the demolition of the former Alpha Sigma Phi House. Peterson said she summarized the suggestions for mitigation in order of priority in a memorandum. She said that first was the funding of an elevator addition at Horace Mann or Longfellow School. Peterson said the second suggestion was a facility study of those two schools, focusing on the issues of maintaining them in the long term. Peterson said that for Alpha Sigma Phi, the strongest recommendation would be to fund a marketing study for the Saint Thomas Moore rectory/parish building, which is sitting empty and is for sale. Michaud said there is a sale pending on the building and asked if the suggestion should therefore substitute something for that if it is sold. Miklo replied that the recommendation could be left unless the building is sold. Michaud asked if there is a backup plan, if the building ends up being sold. Peterson responded that the Saint Thomas Moore recommendation was the strongest suggestion; the other ones all had drawbacks. She said the other suggestions included funding a historic preservation public education campaign for the Manville Heights District, funding the salvage and storage of architectural elements from the fraternity house, and funding a National Register multiple property nomination for historic fraternities and sororities in Iowa City with an education program. Miklo said the National Register nomination for fraternities and sororities was FEMA's suggestion. He said the committee seemed to be skeptical of the idea in terms of the difficulty of convincing fraternities and sororities to voluntarily be listed on the National Register. Miklo said FEMA came back with the idea of an educational program and more outreach with the building owners that might be more successful. He said their suggestion would be to do a National Register nomination and try to convince the property owners, which in some cases are corporations and other times are investors, that National Register listing is a good thing. Swaim asked if there are existing elevators in Mann or Longfellow. Miklo said there are not. He said the idea is that the three schools were built by the same architect in the same year, so there are similarities in terms of historic significance. Miklo said that as one is lost, the idea is what appropriate thing can be done to compensate for that loss to make the others more viable. Swaim asked about the studies that are proposed. Miklo responded that FEMA, or The University at FEMA's direction, would be responsible for coming up with a proposal. He said the City could be a party to the agreement or could just take the role of an observer. Wagner said the idea is to come up with a wish list and select the one thing that really would be ideal. He said the City might as well ask for as much as it can, and then if it gets half of what it asked for, that is still pretty good. Historic Preservation Commission September 8, 2011 Page 9 Peterson said that Downing did contact someone with the school administration who said that an elevator would be a great addition to Longfellow. Miklo said that elevators would be a great addition to both schools. He said the school district did receive an estimate for an elevator for Longfellow. Miklo said he believed the cost was in the range of $400,000. Swaim said she certainly agrees with suggestions one and two for Sabin. She said it is great way of continuing the likelihood of existence for the other schools. Swaim asked, regarding the fraternity house, what the drawback was for suggestion number two. Peterson said that the City has tried to get a district in Manville Heights for a long time. Swaim said, regarding suggestion four and FEMA's response regarding one-to-one contact, she is skeptical about ever getting that done. Wagner stated that the committee thought the ideas for the Sabin School were easier, because there are like properties that need assistance. Swaim asked about the status of Longfellow School. Peterson responded that it is on the National Register. Miklo said it is in the Longfellow Historic District and is therefore protected from demolition without the Commission's approval. Swaim said that Horace Mann is not protected. Miklo confirmed this. Swaim asked, if Horace Mann were nominated for the National Register, if the Commission would go through the same process of designating it locally. Miklo said it could. He stated that the National Register status would make it a more prestigious building and give more of a reason to keep it viable. Baldridge asked about the status of Preucil School. Miklo said it is on the National Register and is also a local landmark building. Baldridge asked if it would be possible to extend that status to Horace Mann School. Miklo answered that, given the history and the architecture of the two buildings, they would really have to have two separate listings. Wagner said that Horace Mann School is just outside of the Northside Historic District. Miklo said it is perhaps a block or two east of the district. McMahon asked if the Commission wanted to revise the list of priorities at all or submit the list as it is. Miklo said the list has to be submitted by September 11th on a form provided by FEMA. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve the suggestions for mitigation of the demolition of Sabin School as submitted to the Commission by its subcommittee. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0, (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble absent). Regarding the list for the fraternity, Swaim said that if FEMA rejects the first three suggestions and funds suggestion four, that might be a gift the Commission does not want, if it is not expected to actually yield any nominations. Miklo said the City is not required to give four suggestions for each demolition. Wagner stated that he is all in favor of the educational projects. Swaim asked about anything educational that could be done regarding the fraternity and sorority houses and if that would have any clout with the actual owners. Baldridge said he thinks there is too much concern about potential restrictions involved with having an historic property. He said that is where education is needed — to teach people that it is in their benefit to do this. Swaim asked if such education would be beneficial in Manville Heights, if there has not been much support there. Baldridge said he believes there has been mixed support. Swaim asked if that neighborhood can be educated any more, or if the Commission wishes to educate whole other portions of the City instead. Historic Preservation Commission September 8, 2011 Page 10 Michaud asked about the statuses of the Chamber of Commerce Building and the Press -Citizen Building. Miklo responded that he believes the Press -Citizen Building is eligible for the National Register, but he did not know if it is listed. He said that there have been so many alterations to the Chamber of Commerce Building that it might not be eligible. Michaud asked about the status of the Davis Hotel. Miklo replied that it is on the National Register but is not a local landmark. McMahon asked Commission members if they would like to change the list of priorities. Swaim proposed deleting number four from the list. Miklo said the subcommittee was skeptical about including that suggestion in the first place, for the same reasons already given. Swaim said that the Commission could look to the work plan for suggestions. Miklo asked if, rather than specifying the Press -Citizen Building, the Commission would want to substitute nomination research and a proposal for other significant landmarks in Iowa City currently not suggested as such. Swaim suggested making that the second idea and moving the others down the list. Wagner and Michaud agreed. Peterson asked for opinions on just eliminating the third idea regarding salvage and storage. Miklo said that Friends of Historic Preservation has already taken that on so that it would be covered. Swaim said the first suggestion would then be the marketing study and then the National Register nomination would be second. She asked if the third one would then be the public education campaign. Swaim said the Commission could suggest two things only. Miklo replied that FEMA is not required to choose from the Commission's list. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve the suggestions for mitigation of the demolition of the Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity house as submitted to the Commission by its subcommittee to maintain number one as listed, to list number two as to fund a National Register property nomination for other various significant structures in Iowa City, and to include as number three the historic preservation education program for the building owners of fraternity and sorority houses. Male seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0, (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble absent). MOTION: Swaim moved to delete suggestion number four regarding the salvage and storage of architectural elements from Sabin School from the suggestions for mitigation of the demolition of Sabin School as submitted to the Commission by its subcommittee. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0, (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble absent). Miklo said a cover letter would be submitted to FEMA along with the form with the suggestions. McMahon thanked those Commission members who served on the subcommittee. DISCUSS NOMINATIONS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS: Miklo stated that Helen Burford had provided staff with a list of potential properties eligible for historic preservation awards, which are tentatively scheduled for early November. He said the Commission needs to quickly decide which properties should be receiving awards. Miklo asked Commission members to e-mail Peterson or himself with addresses of any properties that might be eligible. Miklo said the Commission may want to form a subcommittee to handle the process. He said it is important for the subcommittee to go through the list and determine which properties are Historic Preservation Commission September 8, 2011 Page 11 actually eligible for awards and which are not. Swaim asked if Burford could send the list to Commission members, and Miklo said he would arrange for that. Miklo said that each property would be photographed, with as much documentation as possible, and then subcommittee members would decide which properties would receive awards. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11, 2011: MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's August 11, 2011 meeting, as written. Litton seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0, (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble absent). PUBLIC COMMENT: Josh Moe said he is new to Iowa City, he works across the street now and he has worked in Cincinnati where he was involved in historic preservation. He said this was the first amenable Historic Preservation Commission meeting he had ever been to. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O N O U Z O F- W U) W w a U 2 O F— N G w U W w W V CD Z CD Q N 0 Z W F— Q co o X X o X X X X X o x x x x x x x x o x x o co X x x X X X X X ti 0 X 0 X X 0 X X 0 X 0 X X X X X X X p X O 0 X X X X x X X X X X 0 M X X X X X X x x X X x X X X O O O X X N X x X X X X O x O a x M N M Nt � N N � co N � W rn N M rn N M rn N ce) rn N cM rn N M rn N CM rn N cM rn N M rn N ce) rn N co rn N M H Q Q Y z O U Li Q = W OC Q z Z O ui o Q Z O Q ZO = Q a G Q V J z �_ Q Q Q Z Q 2 V a W m OG F— Y Q Z C9 Q E 2 O � d O O loZ X C a) N c m-0 Z 0 CL n Z u n W 2 11 XOOZ 11 w Y