Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-2011 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, November 10, 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 915 E. Washington Street (new foundation) D) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff E) Discuss FEMA MOA FEMA representative will be present to discuss progress on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the permanent relocation of the University of Iowa Art Building. FEMA representative will also discuss current developments regarding the permanent relocation of Hancher Auditorium, Voxman School of Music and Clapp Recital Hall. F) Discuss Historic Preservation Awards G) Consideration of Minutes for October 13, 2011 and October 17, 2011 H) Adjoumment Staff Report November 4, 2011 Historic Review for 915 E. Washington Street District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Non -historic The applicant, Matthew Roffman, is requesting approval for new construction at 915 E. Washington Street, currently a vacant lot, in the College Hill Conservation District. The project consists of an up/down duplex, with full basement. At this time, Historic Review is for the foundation plan only. The final design of the duplex will be submitted for review at one of the Commission's next meetings. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.5 Foundations 4.12 Site and Landscaping 6.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for New Construction 6.1 New Primary Structures Staff Comments Note: This report is for review of the foundation plan only. The applicant is requesting this review so he may apply for a building permit for the foundation. Final design of the duplex will be submitted for Historic Review at one of the Commission's next meetings. This property is located on the south side of East Washington Street. The lot is empty. The original historic house was lost in a fire. This was a large two story Four Square with pyramid roof, large dormers, wood clapboard siding, and one -over -one double hung windows. There was a two story rear addition. The house was wood frame construction, concrete block foundation, and the roofing was a composition shingle. The house had a full front porch with side entry, thick 3/4 posts, and siding instead of railing. There was a detached garage in back, accessible from the alley. This was a single family residence that had been converted to a five -unit multi -family residence. The College Hill neighborhood includes a mix of single-family and multi -family residential buildings dating from the late 19th through the early 20th century. The neighborhood traditionally had a strong association with the University, housing students in rooming houses, in scattered fraternity and sorority houses, and more recently, in apartment buildings. Private residences housed University faculty and staff as well as many business and civic leaders. Construction of apartment complexes and the unsympathetic renovations of other buildings have diminished the appearance of some of the streetscapes. The applicant is proposing to build a new up/down duplex on this lot. This new duplex will have a full basement that measures 32' 2" x 54' 3" overall, with 8 inch thick concrete walls. The height of these walls above finished grade is not evident from the drawings. Because this will be a duplex, the basement will be divided into two separate spaces, with separate stairways and entrances to each space. In reviewing this foundation plan, it is necessary to know that the design of the duplex includes a front porch and a shared front entry. There will also be rear entrances to each of the two units, and parking spaces off the alley. The new duplex will be wood frame construction. As they pertain to this project, the guidelines recommend the following: Regarding foundations (4.5), a smooth faced concrete foundation for new primary buildings is recommended. To match a typical historic house, there would be 12 to 30 inches of exposed foundation above grade. Regarding site and landscaping (4.12), the preferred location for parking is behind the primary structure, with access from an alley. Providing pedestrian access from the public sidewalk to the front entrance or porch is also recommended. Looking at the proposed plot plan, and the location of the new foundation, the design appears to meet these recommendations for pedestrian access in the front, and parking in the rear. Regarding new construction of primary structures (6.1), there are unique height, mass, and building facade guidelines for each neighborhood. In the College Hill neighborhood, new houses or duplexes must be one - and -one-half or two stories in height; the front of the building cannot exceed a surface area of 1,200 square feet. The proposed foundation is designed for a duplex that will meet these guidelines. The front porch of a new primary structure should be more than 18 inches above the finished grade. This recommendation affects the height of the main floor above grade, the amount of exposed foundation and, therefore, the proposed depth of the new foundation. This information is not shown on the drawings. Also, if there are second -story porches, they should be located above first -story porches or above interior spaces. In this case it is not clear how the proposed foundation plan fits together with the proposed two-story porches on the rear of the duplex. It is further recommended that the front setback for a new primary structure be consistent with the setbacks of existing buildings along the same frontage. This will be enforced by the Building Inspector. The design of the proposed new foundation for 915 E. Washington Street meets most of the requirements of the applicable guidelines, and in Staffs opinion this design will be acceptable for approval with some minor modification and clarification on the drawings. Specifically, the applicant needs to confirm the height of the finished grade on site, and the height of the foundation above grade; the plan of the foundation walls at the rear of the house and their relationship to the stairways must be resolved; and sidewalks and paths on site should be confirmed. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new foundation at 915 E. Washington Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: ■ Provide final drawing of site and foundation plans, showing height of finish grade, height of foundation above grade, revised foundation wall at rear, and sidewalks and paths on site, for review and approval by Chair and staff. pall 0 AV VIA .a� as r'wf`t9P1 "'" l 440'- x 44 y r. C 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: tO / aC /_ I ❑ Certificate of No material Effect l� Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. ❑ Property Owner Name: MA rJ4E_(iJ —ROF FMA k) Email: A20 ll iff Phone Number: (3lq(0 ELL ,4 Address: a4460 /Ywy / City: J© A 1-7 1 TY State: f A Zip Code: �5aa'4 0 Contractor / Consultant Name: '�ptoj F t= I&A A) Email: rdk�-Moyj Phone Number: (311) 631 ' f808 kELL Address: `��� DR Use of Property: .t� A LEY. Date Constructed (if known): 'TO 6C C7n N C- l kl ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (Cho se location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: 0 Contributing Z? Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric C LrJ Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) �� ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information GCJ 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 ❑ Other: ❑ Product Information Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Project Description: _ ►L1 • M i ic/ l -1 • _ Jww Materials to be Used: &L I G- Exterior Appearance Changes: New �ls r�_►����u - sr= i.iq . ppdadmin/histpres/app_for_historicreview.doc 6/11 < < oms VMOI uo VMOI �- So J133MIS NOI )NIHSVM S!6 4� � oj5 NVW33OS UYW ozi D r H o: Z wLi o l7 SAtOMN VMOI'AUO VMOI 3 = ,(—, } Z F N m $� 2 133SlS NOIJNIHSVM Stb N O mG) O NVWA3OS llVW V. r z O 1= U Of H U) z O U W z Q S/y Otit'LS VMOI 'Ally VMOI C, 0 133MIS NOIONIHSVM Sl6 � �� Z I � � � N �"� c O �L O NWVAA021llVW ram. o $ Ira Z Q J n r), O Z O F= U D rz V) Z O U W Z SqJ OMS VMOI "ABO VMOI 8 IL Igo 1338iS NO1JNIHSVM S 16 s (III _ o O Z NVWA302111VW "' n Z O U LLJ U) Z O U rY V) Z O U z W Z If mt i (gift Historic Preservation Commission MEMORANDUM Date: November 4, 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 October report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 1. 1041 Woodlawn Avenue - replacement of porch railings and decks 2. 207 — 215 E. Washington Street — masonry repair/window infill at rear of building Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review 1. 320 Fairchild Street — replace garage doors 2. 427 Clark Street — plan revision to previously approved COA 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 ART BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (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 (IHSEMD) to the University of Iowa (University) for the permanent relocation (Undertaking) of Art Building, University of Iowa, Johnson County, Iowa that was substantially damaged by flooding in June 2008, which resulted in declared disaster DR-1763-1A. WHEREAS, FEMA has determined that the Undertakingis limited to the location selected for the relocation facility, as the demolition of the original facility will be captured in a separate FEMA funded undertaking, and that the relocation site for the Art Building at the selected site will result in the demolition of the former Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity House located at 109 River Street; and WHEREAS, FEMA, in consultation with the State Historical Society of Iowa/State Historic Preservation Office (SHSI/SHPO), has determined that the Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity House is individually eligible for listing' in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C for its architectural design and integrity as an Italian Renaissance Revival Style building, and contributes to the West Side Fraternity Historic District eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and. C for the development of higher education in Iowa and the Fraternity system at the University, and the collection of architectural significant structures within the district; and WHEREAS, FEMA has determined that the Undertaking, to demolish the former Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity House for the relocation of Art Building, will have an Adverse Effect on historic properties, and the SHPO has concurred with this determination in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement 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 determined that site selected for the relocation of the Art Building was sensitive for prehistoric and historic period archeological deposits. The University obtained a Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Site. This survey required additional trench investigation to identify deeply buried soils. The results of both surveys identified no NRHP eligible archaeological deposits, therefore FEMA and the SHPO concur that no further archaeological investigation is required and the Undertaking will result in no effect to archaeological properties; and WHEREAS, FEMA has notified the ACHP on September 22, 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 October 12, 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, 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 stipulations in 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 to coordinate with Friends of Historic Preservation on the development, planning and implementation of an educational symposium highlighting the process and benefit of historic architectural salvage. The Symposium shall explain why particular elements of historic' structures are being salvaged rather than disposed of and how this process not only permits the recycling of historic elements but also reduces waste and saves the embodied energy of those features. The Symposium will present the identification of architectural features and the best uses for salvaged materials such as reuse in compatible historic structures in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The symposium shall also discuss the historic preservation concerns of salvage such as when the value of an intact historic property is less than the total salvage value of parts of the building resulting in salvage over preservation. Salvage and demolition should be considered a last resort alternative to preservation of a structure. The Symposium shall present the basic steps necessary for a successful salvage operation, the skills needed for such an operation and the tangible benefits salvage has on communities. The University and Friends of Historic Preservation may consider coordinating with the Center on Sustainable Communities, and the Symposium may be held at the education center of the Iowa City Eastside Recycling Center. The following steps required to complete Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 2 - of 13 the Symposium must be concluded within thirty-six (36) months from the date of execution. 1. Upon execution of this agreement, the University and Friends of Historic Preservation 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 the Symposium. All specific roles and responsibilities identified between the University and Friends of Historic Preservation shall be outlined and agreed upon at this meeting. This kick-off meeting shall occur within ninety (90) days from the date of execution of this document. 2. Development and coordination of this event shall include, but is not limited to: the hiring of a professional historic preservation speaker(s), space rental for the duration of the Symposium, advertisement development, direct mailing, administration of symposium registration, media, coordination (public access television or radio), catering, and transportation. Drafts of any symposium agendas, advertisements, mailings and mailing lists related to the implementation of the symposium shall be submitted to FEMA, the SHPO for review and comment, submittals to SHPO must be hard -copy, single - sided. FEMA and SHPO may recommendadditional Symposium partners, attendees, and opportunities for marketing the event through this review process. The consultant will afford FEMA and SHPO thirty (30) days to comment on the submitted drafts. 4. Any direct mailing or large advertisements related to the Symposium must including the following statement: "This project was produced under the terms of a Memorandum of Agreement, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation' Act, among the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the Department" of Homeland Security, the State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division and the University of Iowa, regarding the demolition of historic properties in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. FEMA administered Federal disaster assistance through FEMA's Public Assistance Program pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act for the demolition of historic properties resulting from the 'relocation of the Art Building, damaged during the flooding in July 2008'that resulted in declared disaster DR- 1763-IA." 5. The preparer of the documents shall make revisions recommended by FEMA and SHPO to the drafts prior to distribution or publishing. 6. Upon successful completion of the Symposium, the University in coordination with Friends of Historic Preservation shall provide FEMA and the SHPO a final summary report to the Symposium including a final agenda, list of speakers, list of attendees, actual budget costs for the event, and a statement of success and recommendations gleaned from the event. Submittals to SHPO must be hard - copy, single -sided. Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOA1 Page - 3 - of 13 B. FEMA shall provide funds to the University through IHSEMD for the sensitive demolition of the former Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity House located at 109 River Street, Iowa City. Salvage of architectural elements shall include the multi colored clay tile roof, removed and placed on pallets, arched windows and door jams, all hardware associated with windows and doors, exterior light fixtures and interior light fixtures (non florescent), balcony railings, interior wooden doors in jam with hardware, vintage porcelain sinks, all reclaimable wood flooring, all reclaimable wood baseboards, door casings, trim, cabinetry/appliances 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. Any funds received from the sale of salvaged materials shall be used exclusively for the continued operation of the Salvage Barn. The Salvage Barn shall purchase a heavy-duty pallet jack for their use to assist in relocating salvaged materials once delivered to the Salvage Barn. The following steps required to complete salvage must be concluded within twenty-four (24) months from the date of execution. 1. Upon execution of this agreement, the University and Friends of Historic Preservation 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 the salvage operation. This kick-off meeting shall occur within ninety (90) days from the date of execution of this document. 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 former fraternity house located at 109 River Street in such a way that identified building features, including the multi color clay tile roof 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 purchase a heavy-duty pallet jack to be owned and used by the Salvage Barn. The reimbursement of the purchase cost of the pallet jack will be processed through the University as an expense related to the completion of this mitigation measure. 6.'' The Salvage Barn shall provide FEMA and the SHPO a list of all materials salvaged from the former fraternity house located at 109 River Street 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 Art Building or the demolition of the former fraternity house located at 109 River Street, the contractor shall immediately cease demolition activities in the vicinity of the discovery should previously unidentified archaeological sites or Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 4 - of 13 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. 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 thirty-six (36) 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: Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 5 - of 13 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 beunderstoodto 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 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. VIL 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. Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 6 - of 13 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 ART BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA EXECUTED: SIGNATORY FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY By: Date: Kenneth Sessa Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region VII Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 7 - of 13 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 ART BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA SIGNATORY STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA By: Date: Barbara Mitchell Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 8 - of 13 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 ART BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA INVITED SIGNATORY PARTY IOWA HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION By: Date: Dennis Harper State Public Assistance Officer Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 9 - of 13 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 ART BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA INVITED SIGNATORY PARTY UNIVERSITY OF IOWA By: Date: Donna Pearcy Chief Risk Officer Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 10 - of 13 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 ART BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA INVITED SIGNATORY PARTY FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION By: Date: Helen Burford Director Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 1 I - of 13 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 ART BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA CONCURRING PARTY IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Un Date: Alicia Trimble Chair Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - NIOAJ Page - 12 - of 13 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 ART BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA CONCURRING PARTY PRESERVATION IOWA By: Date: Steve Frevert Board Member Art Building Relocation — University of Iowa - MOAJ Page - 13 - of 13 Q September 9, 2011 k)R'I Cw' Historic Preservation Comi-nission Ann Schmid, FEMA Historic Preservation Specialist FEMA/Iowa Closeout Center Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) 7755 Office Plaza Drive North Suite 145, Building G West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 Dear Ann, At a regular meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, on September 8, 2011, the commissioners discussed possible mitigation measures for the loss of Henry Sabin Elementary School and the former fraternity house at 109 River Street. The commissioners approved for submission to FEMA the following suggestions, in order of priority, for Sabin School: 1. Fund the construction of elevator additions at Horace Mann and Longfellow schools; 2. Fund a facilities study of Horace Mann and Longfellow, focused on the issues of maintaining these buildings for long-term continued use; 3. Fund a National Register nomination for Horace Mann Elementary School, The emphasis with these suggestions is on preserving and maintaining in active use the two remaining G L Lockhart designed elementary schools — Horace Mann and Longfellow Elementary Schools. Both of these schools are located in older, residential neighborhoods where they serve as strong community, and architectural, anchors. The commissioners expressed concern that ADA-accessibility issues in Horace Mann and Longfellow could eventually lead the school district to vacate these buildings. Both are multi -story buildings. Longfellow is listed on the National Register, as part of the Longfellow Historic District; Horace Mann is located a block south of the Brown Street Historic District and is not a listed property. For the former Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity House at 109 River Street, the commissioners approved for submission to FEMA the following suggestions, in order of priority: Fund a re-use/marketing study of the former St. Thomas More Rectory and Parish, a historic building currently for sale in the Manville Heights neighborhood, (located at 108 MacLean, in the Manville Heights neighborhood, and owned by the Catholic Diocese of Davenport); Fund research that would identify and document NRHP-eligible properties in Iowa City that have not yet been surveyed, and with this work provide public education on historic preservation. Properties might include the former Press Citizen Newspaper Building and the former Elks Building, both located in the 300 block of Washington Street. d ..�.....�.....�..��. __.non Historic P'reseivation Commission In consideration of the former Alpha Sigma Phi House, the commissioners discussed and decided against two additional suggestions from a subcommittee that had met previously: the commissioners dismissed suggestions to fund NRHP nominations of a Manville Heights HD and of an Iowa City fraternity/sorority MPD, with accompanying education efforts. The majority of the Commission was skeptical about the potential success of efforts to nominate Manville Heights and/or fraternity and sorority houses and wanted to pursue projects that they felt would have more of a chance of success. Please find attached a completed form with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission's list of suggested mitigation measures. Sincerely, David McMahon Vice Chair, Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, IOWA CITY, IOWA TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Friends of Historic Preservation PO Box 2001 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Email: salvagebarn@ic-fhp.org Friends of Historic Preservation (FHP) is requesting an educational event be part of the MOA for the deconstruction of Henry Sabin Elementary School, Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity House and IMU Fountain. The program/lecture would be held at the new educational center of the Iowa City Eastside Recycling Center. The purpose of the lecture would be to explain why particular parts the above historic structures are being deconstructed rather than demolished and how this process not only permits the recycling of historic elements but also reduces waste and saves energy. In short, the program would explain the basic steps needed to accomplish deconstruction, highlight the special skills needed and the demonstrate the benefits to the community. In April 2011, the State of Iowa Workforce Development Information Division released a report, "Iowa Deconstruction & Recycling Inventory," that recognized the need for supporting and educating communities on the value of deconstruction and recycling. Specifically, the study recommended that "a speaker could be made available to provide awareness programs to local communities." To accomplish this task, Friends of Historic Preservation will work with the Center On Sustainable Communities (COSC to locate an appropriate speaker. Friends will promote the program through direct mail, radio and public relations efforts. Estimate: Room rental $250.00 Speaker Honorarium $500.00 Transportation -fuel allowance $ 60.00 Lodging (1 night) $175.00 Meal allowance $ 50.00 Direct Mail 1200-bulk postage $200.00 DM Processing $ 60.00 Printing $175.00 Radio (Iowa Public Radio) $300.00 Catering $100.00 Total $1870.00 PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, IOWA CITY, IOWA TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Friends of Historic Preservation (FHP)requests that the owners of the said property document the said properties with digital photographs prior to deconstruction and provide them to the Special Collections department of the University of Iowa Library All efforts should be made to collect materials and background on the construction of these buildings to be submitted to the Special Collections department. RELOCATION OF CLAPP RECITAL HALL: Henry Sabin Elementary School, Friends of Historic Preservation (FHP) requests that the exterior Indiana Limestone headers and door surrounds be deconstructed and delivered to the Salvage Barn for storage for future use in the to -be developed Iowa City Riverfront project. Elements added to the building to emulate the limestone fascade should also be removed and delivered to the Salvage Barn. To handle these large pieces of limestone within the Salvage Barn, FHP is requesting funding for a heavy-duty pallet jack be purchased and delivered to the Salvage Barn. ($500.00) RELOCATION OF ART BUILDING: Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity House, 109 River St. Friends of Historic Preservation requests the following architectural elements be deconstructed and delivered to the Salvage Barn for the purpose of recycling; Tile roof, on pallets Arched windows and doors and jams All hardware associated with windows and doors Exterior light fixtures and interior light fixtures (no fluorescent) Balcony railings Interior wooden doors in jam with hardware Original porcelain sinks All reclaimable wood flooring All original reclaimable wood baseboards,door casings, and trim. Cabinetry/appliances (Habitat Restore) Please note that this list can be refined after an onsight review of the location. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, IOWA CITY, IOWA TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY IMU Stone Fountain Friends of Historic Preservation (FHP) requests that the fountain be deconstructed and moved to an area that is adjacent to the Iowa Memorial Union. If this is not possible, the fountain should be incorporated into the landscaping of the University of Iowa River Valley Historic District. The fountain should have dedicated signage indicating its original location and documenting that it was the gift of the class of 1936. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 2011 EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Es 'er Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Royce Chestnut, Erica Damman, Rebecca Routh, Mark Russo RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 518 Ronalds Street. Peterson said this could have been a consent 1genda item, but staff wanted to bring it to the Commission for discussion, because staff would like to know 'f removal of non -significant chimneys could be one of the pre - approved minor review items. Michaud agreed hat a chimney that is falling apart should not have to be considered by the Commission. Wagner stated that the criteria for minor reviem of the demolition of a chimney should probably be for a chimney that is at the back of the house and is not archii ecturally significant. Miklo said staff would add that to the list of minor or intermediate review approval items. Regarding this particular chimney, Miklo said it is not really highly visible from the street, it is deteriorated, and it does not have any decorative brickwork, so staff(would recommend approval of the demolition. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a ce tificate of appropriateness for the application for 518 Ronalds Street as presented in the application. Bak r seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 713 N. Lucas Street. Peterson said this is a project for which the owner would like to replace the front door and to do something to even out the appearance of the foundation. She showed a photograph of the foundation and said the west elevation has the same condition. Peterson said the house has a mix of original, textured block and new block. She said the owner's thought is to somehow stucco over. Peterson said she thinks that may be a bad idea and believes perhaps the owner should repair the masonry and just paint it, as opposed to covering over cracks that will just come through the stucco. Peterson said the guidelines say that an unpainted foundation is recommended to stay unpainted; however, she did not think that is applicable here. Peterson said that would be more appropriate when there is only a little bit of foundation showing. She stated that this is a walkout and spans the whole side of the house. Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 2 Peterson said the foundation was not properly toothed together, and she does not think it will perform well with the stucco. Ackerson said he thinks the stucco will work better than what you have there, at least you have done something about cracks. Downing asked about the potential of adding ex erior insulation and then a siding material to match. Baldridge said he has seen new houses built with an obvious y fake stonework fagade that he thinks would look better in this position.. Miklo said he guessed the owner woul I not want to make that kind of investment. Michaud asked if the owner could have something different on the short, front wall and then maybe put siding on the taller back walls. Peterson said that on the west 'side there is a full story that is foundation material. She pointed out where there is half and then as one comes around to the front, less than two feet, and the carport has maybe four to six inches of exposed foundation. Baldridge asked if the owner has consulted a mason. Peterson said she suggested that to the owner. Miklo said the question before the Commission is whether to approve stucco over a two different block foundation materials. Michaud suggested the Commission give the owner some options, since there are not strong opinions about it. Peterson said she thought the paint would be affordable but wouldn't cover up the masonry problems so that they could still be fixed. Peterson said that the front door is also part of the proposal. Peterson said the owner was wavering between replacing the door with a new door and getting rid of the storm or just leaving the current door in place and getting a new storm door. She said this is something that Dan usually be approved by staff and chair. Michaud said that a half light door would be appropriate, and Peterson agreed. Trimble said it is difficult to frame a motion without knowing what the owner's price point is. Miklo said the owner is proposing stucco, unless the Commission is offering another alternative. He said the question is therefore if the Commission would object to having stucco put c ver the two block materials. Michaud asked if there is any kind of stucco board to go over insulation. Downing said that one can buy stucco that goes over insulation; it's called exterior insulating finish system. He said that one can by four by eight sheets of foam and screw those into the block, and then use a fiberglass mesh and plaster it with two to three layers of EFIS. He said that it needs to be done properly to avoid moisture problems. Peterson said if EFIS is used the owner would have to come up with a detail where the siding meets the EFIS on the foundation, because the foundation is going to be thicker than the clapboard wall. She said she does not know how it meets at grade. Downing said one can do insulation below grade, but it would change the type of insulation. Miklo suggested stuccoing the new concrete block and leaving the older block as it is, as an alternative. Trimble said she is not opposed to stuccoing the old block, because it would not look any worse, but she did not think it would necessarily look any better either. Peterson said there would still be a patchwork of different surfaces. Michaud said that at least now, the surfaces are the same shape. She stated that if one adds stucco, it is going to be solid and a lot pointier than the faux stone. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 713 N. Lucas Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: the owner provide product information for the new front door(s) for approval by C iair and staff, and, if the owner does not paint the foundation, that the owner provide product informatio for stucco product and application methods for approval by Chair and staff. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0, (Litton, McMahon, Swaim, and Thomann absent). 427 Clark Street. Peterson said this property is in the Clark Street Conservation District, and the applicant was available to answer questions. Peterson showed the street facing thei side of the house and the back side of the house. Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 3 Peterson said this is an addition project. She said the roof of the one-story component would be removed so that a second story can be added up from the existing addition on the back, and the new addition, the one-story shed roof, would also be added. Peterson showed a sketch f the project and views of the house the way it is now. Peterson said her main concern is that she has not seen the trim work details that would match the existing house, especially the molding at the corner and over die window head. Miklo said staff s recommendation would be for approval, as long as those details match. Peterson said that what has been designed is appropriate, and the proportions seem correct. She said the proposal is for cedar siding and metal clad wood windows and a wood door. Damman, one of the owners of the house, said that this house was known as the murder house on the street, and she is doing her best to have it not be known as tha She said that in the spring, they will try to put back on the porch that was originally on the house. Damman said a drawings really don't show the wood trim described by Peterson, but they agree with matching the trim. Baldridge asked about the porch. Damman said that in the spring, she would like to come in with a proposal to put a full porch on. Michaud asked if the Commission should give a fiber cement board option if cedar is unavailable. Wagner asked if the siding has afour-inch reveal. Chestnut said that it is anywhere from three and one-half to five. Michaud asked if each side is different. Damman responded at it varies, because some of the boards might be spread out and some might be a little bit skinny, but on average 't is four. Wagner said that across the last row, it is four inches. He said that over 16 boards, one can change it perhaps an inch to get four across the top. Wagner said that the siding is correct on the main building, so on the addition, one will want to watch that. Peterson replied that the owners will have to watch it, because this is meeting up; it's in the same wall plane, so they'll have to get it to matc . MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a ertificate of appropriateness for an application for 427 Clark Street as presented in the application, with th following condition: trim at new walls, windows and door, and materials at new eaves will match those of th existing historic house. Baldridge seconded the motion. The 822 Rundell Street. Peterson said this property is in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. She showed a view of the front of the house and said the proposed addition would be n the rear. Peterson said the owners plan to match the siding and the windows on the addition. She said they will be unable to match the roof pitch and the roofing materials. Peterson said the new roof will have a very flat pitch with a membrane -type roofing. She said it might be the best solution to tie into the steep roof without ruining the dormer that is already there. Peterson said the one concern she has is that the porch is projecting out farther than the laundry/bath, and yet the roof is projecting out the same amount. She said that where the edge of the porch is, that much roof overhead seems appropriate, but the roof overhang at the laundry room is at least four feet or more. Miklo said that might be a mistake in the drawing. Routh, the owner of the house, said she did not think this is a four -foot projection. Peterson said it is actually scaled quite deep so that she wondered if the beam and column could be repeated or else the roof pulled back so that there would not be the same fascia line at the laundry room as at the screened portion. She said there would be a couple of ways to deal with that. Routh said she had suggested going out further, approved and that the symmetry would be better. porch. Russo, her contractor, thought that would be less likely to be Routh said Russo had thought that could be part of the enclosed Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 4 Russo said the whole structure is twelve feet d roof is over the whole space. Russo confirmed portico area for storage or sitting. Peterson ask p, and the laundry room is eight feet deep. Peterson said the same is but said it can be changed. He said his idea was to have a sort of if there would be another corner post and beam then. Russo said he thinks he may have intended to cut that roof back to allow light in there. He said that it would actually step back. Baker asked if it would be matched out then, and Russo confirmed this. Peterson asked if the roof edge would then match the building edge, with as much overhang, and Russo agreed. Michaud said she was encouraging the functio ality of the addition. Peterson said that one could either pull the addition out to the same wall plane as the porch or push the roof back on the laundry room. Routh asked if both conditions could be approved, and then she and her contractor could discuss them. Russo said that he did not know about increasing the addition. He said that becomes the enclosed part, so that would become a pretty significant structure then that might look a little odd. Russo said he understands the concern about the roof line and thinks it would make sense to either continue the roofline over and create kind of a portico or to step it back. He said that to increase the depth of the bump out on this solid addition would look odd. Russo said that if he did that, he would prefer to enlarge it, but he did not really want to do that, because the entire purpose of this was to create a screened -in addition that evolved into a joint laundry/bathroom. Peterson said she feels that the proportions are right and that they are holding it back from the corners of the existing house. She said that except for the roof overhang, everything seems to be compliant. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 822 Rundell Street as presented in the application, with �he following condition: provide final drawing of new roof for review, and possibly if the owner wants to hink about the other option, considering the budget or other capabilities and time schedule, for approval y Chair and staff. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0, (Litton, McMahon. S aim, and Thomann absent). Miklo asked to clarify the intent of the motion — if it is for approval as shown, with the roof notched back, or a larger addition. Michaud said it was to enclose a pos ible larger area for a bath, if the owner finds that more functional after all. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY STAFF AND CHAIR: Peterson stated that this information is available in the packet and asked if anyone had additional comments. DISCUSS FEMA MOA: Miklo said that is item is on the Commission' agenda because the Commission was asked by FEMA to have a public meeting to seek comment on the potential demolition of Sabin School and the fraternity building at 109 River Street. This was part of the Section 106 review, which requires when federal funds are used to damage or destroy a National Register eligible property attempts to mitigate the damage should be made. That meeting was held on August I I(the Commission had further discussions at the September 8 meeting). He said the Commission sent back a list of suggested, projects that could mitigate the loss of those historic buildings. For the school, Miklo said the Commission's priority was activity that would further promote the preservation of Longfellow and Horace Mann, the other two his oric school buildings designed by the same architect and built in the same year. He said Commission had requestec funding elevators for those schools and the Commission also was interested in the possibility of listing Horace Mann School on the National Register. The Commission also suggested a facilities study focusing on the issues of maim tining the two schools in the long run. Miklo said FEMA took the Commission's and er public comments into account and came back with the proposal that is on the agenda. He said FEMA felt the levator would be too expensive for them to fund. He said they did propose providing the School District with nding to study heating and air conditioning energy efficiency improvements to Longfellow School, as well s providing funding for the listing of Horace Mann School on the National Register of Historic Places. Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 5 Miklo said that someone from the Northside Neighborhood asked if the same study regarding energy efficiency should also apply to Horace Mann School. He said that was passed on to FEMA, which said it would study the design so that both schools would be addressed r energy efficiency. He said he received a call from FEMA's rep esentative today asking that the Commission table discussion or suggest alternative mitigating projects that FEMA might fund. Baldridge asked why the change? Miklo stated that FEMA indicated that the School District has no agreed to those provisions and had asked that it not be part of the Memorandum of Agreement. He said that FEM therefore has asked that the issue be tabled for the Commission to discuss at its November meeting, finding alternative mitigating measures for the loss of Sabin School or that some other suggestions be offered at this evening's meeting. Miklo said that FEMA is looking for broad ideas for what would mitigate the loss of Sabin School. Baldridge asked why the School District did not wish to participate in the agreement. Miklo did not know. Burford said that the draft MOA was written to say, "...if the school is demolished." She asked if there was any information regarding that. Miklo said it is his derstanding that the current plans are to demolish the Sabin School but that may change. Miklo said the Commission's decision is to either table this discussion to its next meeting or come up with some alternatives mitigating measures. Trimble sugg sted tabling the issue to give the Commission some time to think about the matter. Baker said it would be interesting to know what the School Districts objection to the proposal is. She asked if the School District did not want to be part of this at all or if it wanted the Commission to come up with a better way to preserve the other two schools. Baker said it is difficult to come up with alternatives, not knowing what the School District issues are. Miklo responded that apparently the School District did not want to be part of the agreement at all. Baldridge suggested it would be an advantage to the Sch of District. Ackerson said not being part of the agreement would make it easier for the schools to be torn down. Trimble asked if there was no objection from the School District to putting Horace Mann on the National Register. Miklo said the message he received from FEMA is that the School District is not comfortable entering into the agreement at all. He did not know what the District's concerns are. MOTION: Baker moved to table discussion of the FEMA Memorandum of Agreement to the Commission's next meeting in November. Ackerson second d the motion. Wagner asked if there should be a subcommittee to come up with alternative ideas. Miklo said the question is what other historic preservation activities in the co unity not involving the School District could mitigate the loss of the Sabin School building. Baker said she recal ed from the original discussion that most of the ideas related to the school buildings. Baldridge said that, from a preservation stand oint, he is not willing to give into the School Board that easily. Ackerson agreed. Baldridge said it is for the benefit of the community to get something out of the demolition of Sabin School. This was an opportunity for the School District to receive federal funding to help making its buildings more useful. Miklo said that would be an issue to bring up before the School Board, not FEMA, because FEMA cannot force the School District to be part of this MOA. The motion Trimble said there was correspondence regarding Roosevelt Elementary School. Miklo said the issue is how the Commission would like to respond to the corre pondence. He asked if the Commission wanted to put energy into studying Roosevelt School further, given the Co mission's other activities and resources. Miklo said it is his understanding that the Schodl District is offering the property for sale. He added that any use of the property that is not for a public institution will require a change to the Comprehensive Plan and a rezoning so Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 6 that there will be a public process regarding preserved or not has yet to be determined. use of the building. Miklo said that whether the building will be Trimble said it is a difficult issue in that this would be a big loss to that neighborhood. She added that the School Board has already decided that there will not continue to be a school there. Trimble said she was told that foundation repair would cost $800,000 or more, so it is unlikely that anyone else would use the building for anything. Baldridge said the building has not been mainta#ned. He said that it was inadequate, they planned to enlarge it, but they didn't. Miklo said this probably does deserve some sort f response. He suggested a letter to the effect that the Commission recognizes that this may be an historic building but does not have the resources to nominate it or study it further. Miklo said as an alternative, the letter could give a list of sources to apply to for funding to study. Wagner suggested this could be one of the miigation efforts by FEMA, since the School District is selling the property. Miklo said the School District is thecurrent owner, so mitigation efforts would require its approval. Trimble said that being on the National Register would not stop the property from being sold or the building demolished. She stated that only a local designation would do that. Baldridge said that the real estate where Roosevelt School is located is an extremely valuable property. He said he is a little reluctant to deny the School Board, because it does need funds. Baldridge said the building has sort of been botched up already. Miklo suggested that the Commission chair s nd a letter acknowledging the concerns regarding Roosevelt but stating that, given the limited resources, there is not much the Commission can do about it at this point. That was also the consensus of the Commission. Michaud said the letter should thank those who corresponded for the work done on this. Trimble said the letter could also relate that National Register listing would not necessarily save the building from demolition. Trimble said the awards ceremony would be held on Friday, November 18t', at 5:30 p.m. Peterson presented slides of properties to be considered for awards and discussed the categories. Miklo said the subcommittee met and selected the properties from a larger list. He said they are being presented to the Commission to confirm that the Commission wants to bestow awards on all of them. Regarding the awards, Trimble suggested ac owledging Christina Kuecker, who is the former planner for the Commission, or giving her an award for the wok she did for historic preservation. Miklo said there is a Margaret Nowysz Award that is not given every year, but the Commission may want to consider it this year. The consensus of the Commission was to present the award to Kuecker. Peterson showed the properties nominated for awards for exterior paint, residential stewardship, rehabilitation, commercial rehabilitation, new work, and specie recognition categories. Trimble pointed out that awards are also given out for interior work, which is not something that would come before the Commission. She added that last year, if wners used salvaged or recycled materials, their certificates had a green star to recognize that. Miklo said that letters will be sent to the property owners asking if they want to accept their awards and asking if they want to have their contractors acknowledged as well. Burford asked about the Van Patton House that was heavily damaged in the recent fire. Miklo said Kevin Monson is aware that it is a landmark building and will regUiire review by the Commission. Miklo said the guidelines state that if the owner can demonstrate that the building is structurally unsound and irretrievable, then the Commission may Historic Preservation Commission October 13, 2011 Page 7 issue a demolition permit. Miklo said that permit is issued. involve review of the replacement building before the demolition Michaud asked how tall that building and the B egger's building could be if replaced and if they could be as tall as the Moen Building. Miklo confirmed that they could be six stories or possibly taller, but the sites may not be conducive to taller buildings, because they are so narrow and small. He said that in terms of height, the airport overlay limits downtown heights to about twelve stories. Miklo added that the Bruegger's building is not a designated building so that the Commission cannot do more than make suggestions for that location. Regarding the house at 332-336 South Governor Street, Wagner said that he found out earlier in the day that the Commission did not discuss the back window at 336. Miklo asked if that had been in the plans. Wagner responded that he thought all of that had come up, but the Commission was focusing on the removal of the chimney at 332 South Governor. He said he thinks it was an oversight and should be corrected. Peterson stated that the Commission just review d new steps at the front porch and some railing and support of the foundation at the back porch, but nothing about windows. Wagner said the builder is under time constraints to finish the kitchen and asked if the Commission could convene a special meeting. Miklo said that the Commission cannot approve something that is not on the agenda, because it would violate the open meetings law. Commission members agreed to meet on Monday the 17`s at 5:15 in the Planning Conference Room for a second meeting. Burford asked if FEMA did not anticipate that a Commission would have any comments regarding the proposal about the old Art School Building. Miklo said he thought the reason FEMA brought the other projects to the Commission's attention is that they are within the Commission's jurisdiction. He said that because the old Art School is on the University campus, it was not put before the Commission. Michaud said that for the Monday meeting, the I Green Park. Miklo replied that that particular Commission should probably not talk about i Washington and Johnson Streets is for property need to be reviewed and approved by the Histor about that will therefore be when a proposal is the Commission's review, whether under the cm ammission might want to discuss a rezoning proposal near College tem will come before the Commission as an agenda item, so the in any detail. He added that the proposed zoning change for a a conservation district so that anything built on the property will Preservation Commission. Miklo said the appropriate time to talk ibmitted. He said that anything built on that property will require ;nt zoning or any future zoning. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's September 8, 2011 meeting with the correction that the male voice should be amended to Wagner. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0, (Litton, McMahon, Swaim, and Thomann absent). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s/pcd/mins/hpc/2011/hpc10-13-I1 Z O O U Z O H w N w w a U R O F- N c X X X X X X X O O O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 CD 0 0 p 0 X X X X X X X X O O X X X X X X X X X X O X X X X X X X X X M O W w w w X X X X X X X O O O O N M X X X X X X X a X C7 N CM 't d (N N NT C7 N w.- M 0) C) CA C) a) OJ CA CA CF) CY) N N N N N N N N N N (N CY) CO co CM CY) (Y) M M cM m CY) w F— cQ G Q Y w Y = J Q Q J Q U Q Z Z Ld F— CL QU. p W Q O Z N Z L J w w w w Z Q Q m Z F- a) rn O X w a c a) O O O z a� C a� E O z II 11 2 ; x 0 o z i MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2011 PCD CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Tho: Ginalie Swaim, Dana MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker, Willian STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (beco None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble There was none. CONSENT AGENDA: CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 332 S. Governor Street. Wagner, the contractor for the project, said (ta something — of the two other rooms that go out third 1970s addition. Miklo said the report sent out by Peterson found MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a c Governor Street to approve the closing of information for the shingles and siding to be Wagner said that with that siding, which is addition, which was done in the 30s, which PRELIMINARY Baldridge, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, nann, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner Downing effective only after separate Council action) the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. pe starts in mid sentence — something about the remaining one — the back. He said it is not original to anything, except maybe the this meets the guidelines. icate of appropriateness for an application for 332 South windows on the north side of the addition with the siding ,wed and approved. McMahon seconded the motion. he did find some aluminum siding up underneath the second like he could take off and match the aluminum siding). Regarding the shed porch on the south side f the 332 building, Wagner said he had talked previously about removing some of the siding that is on there about one third of the way up. He said it is rotted and deteriorated. Wagner said the certificate of appropriateness s tes that the owner could replace some of the siding that is on the house shed. Wagner said that, when the siding is removed tc be repaired or replaced, the shed is not part of the original house. He said that the siding and the window that are inside that little shed porch is the exterior wall. Wagner said that if one were to take off the aluminum siding above the one part and all the way around, it would probably uncover the original stucco on the building. Wagner said he is asking that if the siding is re oved and it looks as if the porch would look better without siding on it, if it could maybe just have three posts. He said that is the southern exposure, and that shed doesn't allow the southern light to come into the dining room and the kitchen. Wagner said he would put siding on if he has to, but if he takes it off and decides there could be three columns that would support the porch roof, it might be nicer to just leave it open and it might look more like a porch. Historic Preservation Commission October 17, 2011 Page 2 Wagner said he thinks it would look more al and perhaps a railing to match. He said then temperature and inside temperature are the sal iate to the age of the house to put three turned columns on that would not have to be a storm door on a room where the outside Wagner said he is requesting that if the siding s removed, which the certificate of appropriateness allows, if it is feasible, to not put the siding back on and lea it as an open porch. He said there would be turned columns to match the house, rather than just leaving studs t iere. Wagner said the storm window and door would be removed, and it would be an open porch. He said the othei aspect would be to close the two windows on the north side. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Baldridge moved to amend the motion to allow the option of opening up the porch with the design of the exterior components of the porch to be approved by staff and chair. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0-1 Baker and Downing absent and Wagner abstaining). 336 S. Governor Street. Wagner showed the rear of 336 South Governor, where the kitchen is being renovated as part of the University/neighborhood project. He showed the east side/rear door of the house, which is going to receive a new door that will be a half light, like the one that is on the side door of the foursquare. Wagner showed the window that the design has proposed for removal to provide for a wall of cabinets. Miklo said it would not have been unusual for a rear porch to just have a door. Wagner said that he would match the siding material with cedar siding with the same four -inch reveal. Wagner said he already has approval to replace a three pillars below. He said it is probably the type of columns he would match next door at 332 S. Governor Stree . MOTION: McMahon moved to approve A certificate of appropriateness for an application for 336 S. Governor Street to approve closing the window on the east side under the porch. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0-1 Baker and Downing absent and Wagner abstaining). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s/pcd/mins/hpc/hpc 10-17-11.doc Z 0 �0 00 UV Z 0w awl >Vo W Z N WQ U) z W Z w W a �' UQ R 0 U) 2 c X X X X X X X X X c X X X X X X X O O O O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X o X 0 X X 0 X X 0 X 0 X X X X X X X X O O O LO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X M X X X X X X X O O O N X X X X X X X a x C"M It N Cf) 't It N N It cM N N N N N N N N N N N N cM co co CM C') CM Cf) co CY) M M W H Q 0 w Q �w Y=_ a Q a � a z z Li a QLL Op W Q 0 C9 Z � N Z Li Z 2 D Q J W LL W co z m Y Y U Q p Q Z Q m m o J co I— E 0 0 -0d 0 0 3 Z Xm� C C N ttn <Z a Q u u z ii n W u XOOZ i w Y