Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-2012 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, June 14, 2012 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J Harvat Hall 5:15 P.M. A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. Congregational Church of Iowa City, 30 N. Clinton Street (replace roofing) 2. 4 Bella Vista Place (garage conversion) 3. 523 Grant Street (mudroom addition) 4. 111 & 115 S. Governor Street (demolition) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff F) Subcommittee report on potential local historic districts 1. Jefferson Street National Historic District 2. Melrose National Historic District G) Consideration of Minutes for May 10, 2012 H) Adjournment June 8, 2012 Staff Report Historic Review for 30 N. Clinton Street District: NA Classification: Local Landmark The applicant, the Congregational United Church of Christ Church, is requesting approval for roofing replacement at 30 N. Clinton Street, an Iowa City Local Landmark. The project consists of the replacement of existing roofing, including the repair and/or replacement of trim at the eaves. A licable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.14 Wood Staff Comments The Congregational Church was listed on the National Register in 1973 under Criterion C, (see note below), and is recognized as a well-preserved example of the Late Victorian Gothic Revival Style of architecture as found in religious buildings after the Civil War. Its important exterior elements — pointed arched windows, an imposing corner spire, and decorative millwork — qualified the church for listing. The church was designed by architect Gurdon P. Randall of Chicago. Construction began in 1868 and the church was completed in 1869. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing asphalt shingles from the roof and spire, and install new `stone coated' metal roofing. The proposed roofing product is manufactured by Gerard Roofing, designed to resemble asphalt shingles. This product consists of steel panels with a finished surface of granite granules adhered to a resin basecoat. Each metal panel measures approx. 15" x 45", and has the appearance of two rows of shingles. The panels are installed over wood battens, overlapping and `locking' together. The life expectancy, and manufacturer's warranty, for this product is considerably longer than that of asphalt shingles. The proposed project also includes repair, replacement, and painting of the wood trim at the eaves. At the main south -facing roof slope, where the original eave has been previously modified, a new metal fascia and soffit are proposed. It is presumed that the project also includes replacement of all gutters and downspouts. The guidelines for roofs (4.7) recommend preserving historic wood trim and any decorative metal. The guidelines also recommend the use of asphalt shingles that resemble the texture and color of weathered wood shingles for roofs that had wood shingles historically. While the guidelines are generally intended for historic houses, the church is assumed to have had wood shingles, and the recommended use of modern materials that resemble the historic shingles is applicable to this project. (Metal roofing that looks like asphalt shingles that look like wood shingles.) The guidelines for wood (4.14) also recommend repairing rather than replacing historic wood elements. Where the wood is damaged and beyond repair, the guidelines recommend replacing with new wood to match the original. Wood substitutes such as fiber cement board may be considered, but substituting a material in place of wood that does not retain the appearance, function, and paintability of the original wood is disallowed. The guidelines are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, which state that deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced, and where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. In Staffs opinion, the proposed work appears to meet the requirements of the guidelines, although the extent of repair and replacement of existing material at the roof edges is not clear and should be identified. Profile details of new metal components at roof edges should also be reviewed for appropriateness — including soffit, fascia, gutters and downspouts. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 30 N. Clinton Street, as presented in the application, with the following condition: ■ Provide roof edge details, including wood and metal components, for review and approval by Chair and staff. Note: Criterion C: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. I (, ,6 a k"'i a s I--q _N it M-- M a 1. J 1E Application for'Historic Review Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: S l a S lam_ ❑ 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 Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: C OAJ6 t hFzt .41) n'V.4C CNaQCN or- IoAIA C,, rf-, Email: Address: Phone Number: ( City: State: Zip Code: 'IcyContractor /Consultant Name: C/-{IZGSo�J P��Ir9/Vl �,17�LS o �/ Email: l- C 0. P Is oN e, C 17 T = t�2C. nAl Phone Number: (51q) Address: IZ 10 5' 4 $U 1725/00 City: jO A)A C / 7Y State: JA Zip Code: !FZZ 46 Proposed Project Information Address: 30 CL /�VrnnJ 1STi1.F-F-T , oul A CIY7" _ Use of Property: C 14 u l2G H Date Constructed (if known): 1 SG F — 1 861 Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) This property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: 11 Contributing ❑ Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric C E Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. XPhotographs 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: fZF-MOVAL OF . /. SNIN44Es, 11%1srAz-eAnoJeE m14WEP ♦ /r ff / l / I I aI W17V NEW ML ./ / r / //_ OIL A9 /i e i AA1Q S/HE i iI /AU i Materials to be Used: �' • � it + � ' Exterior Appearance Changes: ss . _ � • OOE69mx 450 _./ & /.I % Granite Ridge .nd Guardian r,13GERARD Gerard's Granite Ridge and Guardian profiles provide an alternative to high -end composite architectural shingles. Asphalt and composite shingles break down from the sun's powerful ul- traviolet rays causing them to fade, deteriorate, and curl. Traditional shingle material is also _ 0 prone to damage cause by foot traffic, hail, and wind up lift. Gerard Granite Ridge and Guardian can easily be installed directly over an existing asphalt roof reducing the amount material dis- posed in landfills. Metals USA Building Products' 19 Gerard Roofinal Batten & Counter Batten StudyJ M.2GERARD Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted a study, commissioned by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Program, on infrared (IR) blocking color pigments. The DOE was inter- ested in the possible benefits of using "cool" pig- ment in roofing material, especially stone coated steel roofs since IR-blocking granules are highly emissive and reflective. Ten decks were tested for one year to include both summer and winter condi- tions. • The control deck was covered in dark gray as- phalt shingles applied direct to deck. • One deck was painted metal and fastened di- rect to deck. • Two decks were stone coated steel with dark gray conventional (no IR-blocking granules) on batten and/or counter batten systems • Six decks were stone coated steel with light gray IR-Pigment granules and applied on batten or counter batten systems. Venting was achieved with mesh -covered opening at the eave and at the ridge. Results from the Study: IR-Pigments returned expected results. Heat transfer was reduced by approximately 45 per- cent when compared to the control deck or as- phalt shingles. However, only 15 percent could be attributed to batten/counter batten installa- tions, or over the deck venting. When the decks coated with conventional dark gray granules (similar in reflectance and emit- tance to the asphalt shingles) were compared to the control deck (asphalt shingles) heat trans- fer was still reduced by the venting created with the batten/counter batten installation When the light gray IR-Pigment stone coated panels were compared to the dark gray con- ventional stone coated panels (both installed on a batten and counter batten system), it was noted that the panels with the dark gray con- ventional granules swept away more than twice the amount of heat flow than the IR-pigment granular coated panels: the heat produced by the darker pigment granules increased the amount of hot air swept away from the deck, preventing it from entering the attic. Metals USA Buildinn Prnducts® 7a r_o, 4 R,,,,f,,,,, Granite Ridges Guardian Pans 0,20EMRI 46-1/16" - 44"— Substrate 2-1/16" SIDEW 2-1/16" SIDELAP 26 Gauge Zincalume® U Li Li Li L' Li U U Lj_ U. Installation Battenless Install Solid Sheathing 211 x 2" wood or metal battens Re -roof over asphalt shingles Minimum Roof Slope 4:12 Maximum Roof Slope 12:12 Metals USA Buildina ProductsO 4F (.Aram Rnnfinno U OC 2 U J Q Z O H Q C7 w o� c� z O U Staff Report Historic Review for 4 Bella Vista Place District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing June 8, 2012 The applicants, Jennifer and George Wagner, are requesting approval for an alteration project at 4 Bella Vista Place, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The proposed project will convert the existing attached garage into a new entry and mudroom. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.5 Foundations 4.11 Siding 4.13 Windows Staff Comments 4 Bella Vista Place, constructed c. 1921, is a 2-story side -gabled Colonial Revival Style house. The end gables have pent roof returns and a small double -hung window centered beneath the gable. The front facade has the entrance in the right bay surmounted by a shallow pediment, semi -circular transom and side lights. Two pair of double -hung windows to the left of the door completes the first floor. On the second floor the pair windows are in the outside bays with a smaller window in the center. Shutters which appear to be original are still remaining on the south side of the house. Siding is clapboard, foundation is brick. Repairs on the back of this house, and the addition of a new deck, were approved by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission in 2005, and the project was completed the following year. In 2011, the Commission approved a proposal to demolish the existing attached garage, build a one-story addition in its' place, add a roof deck on the existing two-story north wing, and build a shed dormer on the rear side of the main roof. These projects have not been built, and at this time the owner is interested in preserving the existing garage and converting it into a new entry and mudroom. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing garage doors and infill the remaining opening with a new entry door and new windows. In the connecting `breezeway' between the garage and the house, the existing door will be removed and new windows installed. While the proposed project will not expand the building footprint, the guideline recommendations for additions (5.0) are applicable, as this section of the recommendations addresses projects that expand the interior living space, accommodating modern uses in historic houses. These recommendations include preserving significant historic materials and features of the original structure; using materials similar to those on the historic building; matching the appearance of the historic foundation and exterior wall siding; installing doors and windows that are similar in style and appearance to those in the historic building; and using similar trim and moldings. Applicable guideline recommendations for alterations include the following: Doors: new doors should be trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building; any door materials other than wood must retain the style and appearance of the historic doors, and must be durable and accept paint. Windows: new windows should match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows; the location of new windows should be consistent with the window pattern of the historic building; the use of metal -clad, solid -wood windows is acceptable; and divided lights may be created with muntin bars adhered to both sides of the glass. Foundations: repairing or replacing foundations with materials that appear similar to the existing materials in size, color, texture, composition, and joint pattern. Siding: repairing historic wood siding and trim; replacing deteriorated sections with new or salvaged to match; substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood — in many applications, fiber cement board with a smooth finish is an approved substitute. Note that removing or covering historic trim such as door and window trim, skirt and frieze boards, and corner boards is disallowed. In Staff's opinion, the proposed project appears to meet the guidelines, although specific door and window products should be identified to confirm appropriateness. Staff's main concern is that the project maintains the existing trim and inset profile of the garage door opening, as this is a significant feature of the structure that should be preserved. If it is the intent of the proposed design to preserve this feature, then it is not clear from the sketch provided, and more developed drawings are needed. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 4 Bella Vista Place, as presented in the application, with the following condition: Provide final design, with door and window product information, for review and approval by Chair and staff. A.t f it L From: Jennifer WAGNER (mailto:jseter@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 10:28 AM To: Jennifer WAGNER; kinnickhawks; Cheryl Peterson; Bob Miklo Subject: historic preservation/application enclosed Importance: High Dear Bob and Cheryl - Below is our application for Historic Review. We will get the drawings to Cheryl by Friday. Many thanks - Jennifer and George Wagner Property Owner Information: Name: George and Jennifer Wagner Email: kin nickhawks@msn.com; iseter(&msn.com Phone: 319.573.6416 (George); 319.331.2242 (Jenn) Address: 4 Bella Vista Place Iowa City, IA 52245 Contractor/Consultant: George is serving as the general contractor. Proposed Project Information: Address: Home address as stated above Date constructed: 1922 Historic Designation: This property is within the Brown Street Historic District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing Application Requirements: ALTERATION [See attached photographs. Drawings to be provided on Friday the 25th.] Proposed Project Details: Project Description: The project concerns the structure on the south side of the home, formerly the original garage. This structure was deemed "of no historic value" during a historic preservation meeting last year when we initially sought to tear it down. The structure is attached to the house via a breezeway. We now intend to keep this original structure intact, and to make it usable space. As such, we seek to change out the original outside doors of the structure. Please see photos. Rather than three doors - which currently exist - the new exterior wall would consist of one door (on the left) that would serve as the main entrance to the structure. The other two original doors (the middle and right doors) would be replaced with siding and windows that mimic the look of the originals. We also intend to close up the door now leading to the breezeway, and replacing that with a transom window. Project Details: - all windows will have 6 divided lights save for transom, which will have three. - all windows will be wood interior, and clad exterior - all siding will be Hardibacker clapboard, matching existing house style reveal - trim casing for windows and corners will match existing casing measurements and styling - we will duplicate the existing 3 window pattern from original garage door, along with left door entrance - drip cap and molding to match existing house style, corner fascia and bead will not be disturbed We would appreciate a response indicating you have received this email. Thank you very much - George and Jenn Wagner Staff Report Historic Review for 523 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing June 8, 2012 The applicants, Tim Weitzel and Wendy Robertson, are requesting approval for an alteration and addition project at 523 Grant Street, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of window replacement in the kitchen, and a new one-story mudroom addition on the rear of the house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.13 Windows 9.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Staff Comments This is a one and one-half story front gambrel house. The foundation is concrete block with a rusticated stone -look finish. The walls are clapboard except for the upper portion of the two gables, which are clad in square butt wood shingles. The roof is asphalt shingles. The style is best identified as Colonial Revival, from the period of the Eclectic movement. Built c. 1912, in the Rundell Addition to Iowa City, the builder is assumed to be J. D. Miller, a local carpenter/contractor and land speculator. The current owner, Mr. Weitzel, has researched the design of the house and notes that it is similar to pattern book plans of the time, although he has found no conclusive evidence that it was indeed a catalogue house or built from mail order plans. Mr. Weitzel has recently updated the Site Inventory Form for this house, providing a more complete description and history, noting in particular the integrity and significance of the built-in gutters. The proposed project includes removal of the rear enclosed porch, construction of a new cloakroom/ mudroom, and installation of replacement windows in the kitchen. The proposed mudroom addition is approx. 12' x 12', with a low pitched roof, EPDM roofing, and round downspouts of galvanized steel. Exterior siding will be cedar clapboard, with pine trim boards. Salvaged T&G Douglas -fir floor boards are proposed for the floor at the in -set door. The proposed door is a Therma-Tru fiberglass entry door. The proposed windows are Marvin — Clad Ultimate Double Hung — to match replacement windows previously installed in this house. The windows proposed for the kitchen are the same Marvin windows, and to accommodate new kitchen counters the window sill height will be 5" higher than the existing windows. These windows are located on the main floor level at the back of the house, one on the north and one on the west side. With regard to the replacement windows for the kitchen (4.13), the guidelines recommend that new windows match the type, size, sash width, trim, divided lites, and overall appearance of the historic windows. The windows are being replaced to create a more functional kitchen. The guidelines provide for modification of windows provided that the new configuration does not detract from the overall fenestration pattern. The use of metal -clad, solid -wood windows is acceptable. The proposed Marvin windows are included in the Commission's list of pre -approved window brands and lines. For additions that expand the building footprint (5.1), the applicable guidelines are as follows. Design: distinguishing the massing of the addition from that of the existing building; using a palette of materials similar to the existing building; and matching key horizontal lines on the existing building. Mass and Roofline: constructing an addition with proportions similar to the existing building; constructing the roof pitch, overhang, soffits and eaves to match the existing building. Foundations: constructing a foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation. Siding: applying siding to the addition that matches or appears similar to the siding on the existing building. Windows: using windows that are of a similar type, proportion and divided lite pattern as those in the existing building. Doors: installing doors that match the material of historic doors, and have a similar style and appearance. In Staff's opinion, the proposed work meets the intent of the guidelines. Design of the in -set door and corner column needs further development to identify an appropriate column style, which might match the columns of the front porch, with similar square cap, and similar cornice `beam' under the soffit. Staff also suggests that the space proposed for the door seems narrow and somewhat tight, and the small window next to the door seems unnecessary — a solid wall here would be a better choice. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 523 Grant Street, as presented in the application, with the following condition: Provide final design details at the column and door, for review and approval by Chair and staff. ".IVA WvAh - ;.� . �hI�II I1'llllaa� II II II I II IO 1 y! r � i 'llllllll ,I I I ilfT:�-fir I ( V K \\11111I!, 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: ❑ 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 Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. C X Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) Property Owner Name: / z�i++ 61e-i ize l 4- kleoA, A-%,e jj • r7 Email: T�c.C,`Jae%'o e01A % �Giyld:/ .6,w? Phone Number: (339O Address: City: - /00r. n 11, ! I /' State: / Zip Code: O Contractor / Consultant Name: (on k-, c,4,r : V ► , )r_Lr / �i - Lett rbv AoYi / Cr:, c,, /tih � /•%r G�Tz� rVJ&fK /Ka7w IK4-c.ftC4� vwp •I Email: '- un I'sc'vt a Q Phone Number: (311 ) Address: - I •► t y all 1� d City: C doJL 1. L _ State: / Zip Code: 522 Y 5— Proposed Project Information Address: 2 aN Use of Property: Re 'kll 14. I P'j — off D Date Constructed (if known):2- Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑_,/College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District IK 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 Withinthedistrict, this property is classified as: !'J Contributing ❑ 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.) V1 Building Elevations 0 Floor Plans Ef Photographs IZf Product Information ❑ Site Plans P 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 ET Photographs Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans 21 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.) Ld 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 Proiect Description: Materials to be Used: J lz&* u&& of Cyyivi Exterior Appearance Changes: ppdadmin/histpres/app_ tor_ historicreview.doc 12/11 m E E E Tim Weitzel / Wendy Robertson House Mud Porch + Cloak Room Addition r-I'6v4A"" �tf.5 t�e-civ-(— t4uj 5e"x pk 5/20/11 Tim Weitzel, HPS EG I— E F1 Tim Weitzel / Wendy Robertson House Mud Porch + Cloak Room Addition 5/20/11 Tim Weitzel, HPS U T CL � \�', � C� e, r*N �Or L CA n Tim Weitzel / Wendy Robertson House Mud Porch + Cloak Room Addition 5/20/11 Tim Weitzel, HPS 101 C'L j ') cCJ CC. 5 �- F1 Tim Weitzel / Wendy Robertson House To -rC' � SUS � Mud Porch + Cloak Room Addition efe "'�' �' a 5/20/11 Tim Weitzel, HPS Staff Report June 8, 2012 Historic Review for 111 & 115 S. Governor Street District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Justin Mulford, is requesting approval for demolition of the houses at 111 and 115 S. Governor Street, both contributing properties in the College Hill Conservation District. The applicant is proposing construction of a new fraternity house on these two lots. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features 7.2 Prevention of Demolition by Neglect Staff Comments These adjacent houses on South Governor Street are both two-story, wood framed, with clay tile foundations, wood clapboard siding, and asphalt shingles. 111 S. Governor is a typical foursquare; the hip roof has swept eaves, and there are matching hip dormers. This house has narrow siding, mitered at the corners; windows are double -hung, with a fixed sash `picture' window on the front. The full -width front porch has large paneled columns, a solid wall railing, and the porch roof is supported by a wide elliptical arch. The Iowa City Assessor lists 1922 as the date of construction. The Iowa Site Inventory Form prepared in 1994, when the College Hill neighborhood was surveyed, lists the construction as c.1900/1922. It was also noted on the Inventory Form that this house had become a multi -family residence, `intact and well maintained,' original with the exception of a metal fire escape added on the front facade. 115 S. Governor was built in 1927, according to the Iowa City Assessor; the Iowa Site Inventory Form lists c.1910 — 1915. This is a Craftsman style house, with side gabled roof, shed roofed dormer, and full -width front porch with shed roof. Windows are double hung, and on the front there are two large multi -paned windows with leaded glass transom. Classic features of the Craftsman style include wide, unenclosed eave overhang; exposed roof rafters; and front porch with square columns. At the time of the 1994 survey, this house was also a multi -family residence, owned by the same property owner as 111 S. Governor. It was also noted as `intact and well maintained.' Side by side, these two houses are prominent on the 100 block of South Governor Street; they are both multi- family rental properties; and they have a history of being sold together. The applicant is proposing to demolish both houses and in their place build a new fraternity house. The proposed new fraternity house would be two stories, approximately 50 feet deep x 80 feet wide, with a total of 24 bedrooms — eight down and sixteen up. The guidelines for demolition (7.1) state that a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of any primary building on a contributing property will be denied unless the applicant can demonstrate that the building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. The guidelines also state that before a COA for demolition will be approved for a primary building, the Historic Preservation Commission must approve a COA for the building that will replace the one being demolished. Historic Review for a new fraternity house in this location would require that the applicant meet the guidelines for new construction (6.1 New Primary Structures), and the guidelines specific to the neighborhood (8.2 College Hill Neighborhood), and the guidelines for a multi -family building (9.0 Design Guidelines for Multi -family Buildings). Furthermore, a COA for a new multi -family building cannot be issued until the design has been reviewed for compliance with site development standards defined by the Iowa City Zoning Code. At this time, the applicant's proposed plans are not sufficiently developed to begin any of these reviews. Regarding prevention of demolition by neglect (7.2), the owners of buildings that contribute to a designated Historic or Conservation District must preserve those buildings against decay and deterioration, and the buildings must be kept free from structural defects. The Historic Preservation Commission may file a petition with the Building Official requesting investigation of any applicable building suspected of neglect or deterioration. In Staff's opinion, these two houses appear reasonably stable and functional, in spite of obvious deferred maintenance and lack of repair, and at this time they do not meet the definition of structurally unsound and irretrievable. The construction methods and materials are similar to other houses of the time, which remain indefinitely serviceable with proper care and maintenance. This assessment is supported by a building inspection conducted by Stephen Burns, whose report is attached. In both houses the basements are finished to provide living spaces, and the foundation walls are for the most part covered by plaster or furred out and paneled. Where the foundation walls are exposed they appear intact and stable, and overall the walls do not show signs of significant bowing, cracking, or settlement. Viewed from the exterior, the walls do not appear to be failing, and observed areas of broken tile and missing mortar appear repairable. Overall the structural framing in both houses appears to be reasonably stable, and deficiencies seem repairable. There is significant settling of the northwest corner of the kitchen addition at 115 S. Governor, where the foundation is not original and may not be sufficiently deep. The front porches on both houses are also in need of significant repair, especially at the support piers, floor supports, and steps, yet overall these porches are still salvageable. As there is not sufficient evidence that either of these houses is unsound and irretrievable, it is staffs opinion that a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition should be denied. Recommended Motion Move to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 111 and 115 S. Governor Street. Stephen R. Burns, Inc. Home & Buildina Inspection P.O. Box 943 Iowa City, IA 52244 Tel: 319-400-4844 Fax: 319-358-9284 Email: srbumsinc@gmail.com MEMO INSPECTION REPORT TO: Bob Miklo, Cheryl Peterson, et al. FROM: Stephen R. Burns RE: Brief Overview Structural Inspection of 111 and 115 S. Governor Street INSPECTION DATE: 5-5-12 with Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson, and Justin Mulford INTRODUCTION As discussed and per Client request, this was a brief visual overview of the general structural and repair condition of the 2 buildings rather than a typical detailed real estate inspection. GENERAL COMMENTS Both buildings appear in similar physical condition. Both appear generally stable, functional and overall repairable. However, repair and maintenance needs are significant with many areas of neglect or deferred maintenance observed. The primary focus of the inspection was structural stability and general viability. The structure can be considered to have 4 main components, 1) the main house foundation and 2) the main house framing including floors, walls and roof structure and 3) the additions and 4) the entry porches. A garage is present at 111 Governor, considered as a separate 5`h component. The components and characteristics are addressed as follows: FOUNDATIONS Foundations of both buildings are clay tile, as was typical of era. Clay tile foundations are known to have less lateral strength than concrete block or poured concrete foundations. Nevertheless, a clay tile foundation is not inherently deficient and can serve indefinitely with proper care and maintenance. While the inspection was very limited by interior wall coverings and the normal limited view of any exterior foundation wall due to ground cover, the overall impression of is that the foundations in both houses are generally intact and stable. The foundations appear in similar condition to others of the same type and era that remain in service. • Isolated areas need repair. See, for example, below the window in the window well on south side of #115. Also some isolated block repair/replacement on interior. • Most other visible interior areas did not show a need for significant repair, other than some possible tuck pointing. Wall coverings would need removal to fully determine extent of all maintenance or repair needs. • Lateral movement or bowing did not appear significant, based on surface view at exterior and general impression of interior as visible. • In all foundations, but especially with clay tile, the grading and gutter system need to be maintained to direct water away from the foundation, preventing damage from frost action. FRAMING STRUCTURE Framing structure appears intact and functional overall. Some deflections observed as typically associated with age and settling. These deflections appear well within expected norm for age of structure. Specific repair needs not immediately apparent. Limited inspection. But some isolated support is advised for long term performance. See, e.g. header and joists at fireplace. Joist hangers advised where they would be helpful. 111 & 115 S. Governor St ADDITIONS Each building has rear additions on separate footings. As follows: Building 111: Rear porch addition has had poured concrete pier foundations added some years ago. These appear intact and stable and likely at frost footing level. Verify as possible. The framing above is somewhat deflected or irregular configuration. The framing support might be adequate but in need of straightening and possible strengthening. Irregularity could be largely eliminated by lifting and replacing main post supports. Building 115: Rear addition is partially from original era with original foundation. Later addition northwest portion of this foundation has open joist with corner pier support using concrete blocks. Blocks are intact but deflection/settling in framing structure above indicates probable lack of frost footing at this pier. Frost footing could be added. Deflection could be largely eliminated by raising structure back to level following pier repair. ENTRY PORCHES Front porches on both buildings appear salvageable but with significant repairs needed for long term performance. Repair needs include: one or more pier replacements, step replacement, improved floor support, and probable flooring replacement. Upper structure, roof, and posts/columns appear largely intact, functional, and salvageable. GARAGE The garage at Building 111 does not appear likely savable in a cost-effective manner. North wall would need full rebuild. Southwest corner also would need rebuild. Cost of repair could exceed cost of replacement. Replacement thus more advisable. CONCLUSIONS The houses are judged overall viable as structures. Structural condition is similar to other houses of the era that remain in satisfactory service and were built with similar materials. Maintenance and repairs are needed for general livability and to preserve the buildings over the long term. END OF REPORT AGREEMENT: The Inspection Company agrees to conscientiously apply its experience and knowledge to provide an objective visual inspection and warrants that it has no financial interest in the Property. No other warranty or liability is expressed or implied by this Agreement. In using this report, the Client agrees and understands that this Report is not a building warranty nor is there any assurance that items found functional shall remain so for any specified length of time. Client understands that this was a very limited general visual inspection, as requested, and that further technical inspection of any component is available at additional cost. Client agrees to not hold Inspector or Inspection Company liable for any unintentional oversight, and agrees that Inspection Company liability shall in no case exceed the inspection fee. Stephen R. Burns, Inc. ASHI Certified Inspector #252076 111 & 115 S. Governor St 2 � \ � ƒ .� <� � / . \ � .�: \ ` � } , 0 Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted:/ / ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Email: w' te- - N01"-•�l . C., Phone Number: Address: Z%-'7 (-, City: coeri'1+0-0- State: Zip Code: ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: Email: Address: City: ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. Phone Number: ( State: Zip Code: OR This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ®. College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: 0- Contributing 11 Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans JA 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 9L-" 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. Project Description: 1 Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: ppdadmin/histpres/app_for_historicreview.doc 12/11 4-C W"is ",V, , Tt,,- `iYr.� �r ✓�+' / p w t P { wIXa ��� VJ engineering 2570 holiday road, suite 10 Coralville, iowa 52241 Ph: (319) 338-4939 fax: (319) 338-9457 Engineering — surveying 111 S Governor The following structural defects were noted: 1. The basement walls were again composed of structural clay tile. The majority of the inside surface was furred out and finished. Large areas of mortar loss were observed on the west exterior surface. These masonry units again are not adequate for the imposed lateral earth loads. 2. The header over the basement hallway was inadequately framed. 3. The western two story addition is inadequately supported. 4. The front porch has severely settled and deteriorated. 5. Numerous cracks in the plaster finishes could indicate deficiencies in the wood framing. A first floor bearing wall was removed and it is unknown whether adequate headers were installed. 6. The garage structure west of the house is heavily damaged and deteriorated. This structure is unsafe and should be removed. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Jam C. Jacob I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared and the related engineering work was ed by me or under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly Licensed rofewia Engineer upker the lmwT.—of'lft+st`State of lawa. 889 j 'eJames C. acob, P.E. License #08895 Date rri My Ikens 'renewal date is December 3112013 J00013 �'��. «K•"��` Pages or sheets covered by this seal: 6 VVJ Engineering VJ engineering 2570 holiday road, suite 10 Coralville, iowa 52241 Ph: (319) 338-4939 fax: (319) 338-9457 Engineering — surveying May 10, 2012 Ralston Creek Holdings Attn: Justin Mulford 2872 Ash Ct Coralville, IA 52241 Re: 111 & 115 S Governor St, Iowa City, IA Dear Mr. Mulford: At your request, we conducted a structural inspection of the two referenced buildings. Both buildings are two-story, wood framed residential structures with basements. The inspections were limited to exposed structural elements with no finishes removed or destructive testing. 115 S Governor The following structural defects were noted: 1. The exposed basement/foundation walls were composed of structural clay tile with a thin cementious coating applied to the exposed exterior portion. The exposed walls were bowing inward from lateral earth pressure. These non -reinforced walls do not have adequate lateral strength to resist the applied earth pressures. There were also numerous broken or deteriorated clay tiles that further compromised the foundation capacity. 2. The northwest kitchen addition is experiencing settlement of the CMU piers and decay of the wood framing bearing on these piers. This combination is resulting in the rotation of the addition and it is pulling away from the original structure. 3. The front porch foundation is settling and severely deteriorated. Additional shoring was added but it is also settling and no longer effective. 4. Numerous cracks in the plaster finishes could indicate deficiencies in the wood framing. Wood decay of roof fascia and soffits was observed. ,� VJ Engineering 7�. IF ON /0'f IGe,06 466, fG�,�,Ol df `1Sa /alCcyVe'AF/ -�,- A/l011,,--ld /GG ci&,errvor — �, UDU sf 1SS. 60,1-c^or -- G, G®b's�- /Z) 006 �,r tgfA/ 3C C 6 Ic ,� Ares; � of o 0 J 0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Oty I Iall, 110 F, Washington Street, Io -a Cats. IA. 552240 MEMORANDUM Date: June 8, 2012 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 May report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 1301 Muscatine Ave. (repair existing wood windows and existing aluminum combination storms) 903 Dearborn Street (replace concrete steps/stoop at front entry) 935 E. College Street (repair section of built-in gutter, soffit, and fascia) 327/329 Brown Street (replace soffits, replace wood trim) 714 N. Johnson Street (replace soffit beadboard) 228 Church Street (replace porch flooring) 228 S. Summit (stucco repair, roofing repair) 802 N. Dodge Street (repair stone foundation) Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review None Minor Review — Pre -approved items — Staff review 520 S. Governor Street (new roof on detached garage/apartment) MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 10, 2012 EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Kent Ackerson, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Dana Thomann STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Maryann Dennis, Tammy Spies, Jean Walker RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1301 Muscatine Street. Peterson showed a map of the College Hill Conservation District, pointing out this property at the corner of Muscatine and Burlington Streets. She showed the front of the house. Peterson said staff originally felt that all the components of the application could be done through intermediate review. She said that when staff went to look at the windows, they realized they were in pretty good condition and did not meet the guideline qualification for being deteriorated. Peterson said that is why this is before the Commission. Peterson stated that the windows are original, and the two pairs on one side of the house would be replaced in the proposal. She said there is no proposed work for the windows on the porch. Peterson said that one window on the south side would be included in the project. Peterson added that the owners are working on multiple aspects of renovating this house, including a new garage door and redoing the retaining walls as part of what staff has approved. She said the problem with the window replacement is that the guidelines say the windows must be deteriorated to be replaced; otherwise they should be repaired. Peterson said the specifications for the project list repair. She said she feels that the owners probably need to replace the combination storm/screens, if those are binding up and have failed. Peterson said that restoring the windows and possibly replacing the storm/screens is her recommendation at this time. Regarding the specifications that she sent everyone in an e-mail, Peterson said there was a visual inspection that showed a little bit of loose paint at the very bottoms of the sashes and perhaps a little on the sill. She said the recommendation from the City reviewers is that that can be scraped and repainted. Peterson said that would mitigate the lead problem. Spies said she is the project manager for a private non-profit landlord in Iowa City. She said this would be a rental project. Dennis said she is Executive Director of the Housing Fellowship. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2012 Page 2 of 7 Dennis said she did not know how thorough of an investigation of the windows was done by City staff. She said the Housing Fellowship (HF) works very closely with the rental housing inspection department of the City of Iowa City. Dennis said the Housing Inspector is kind enough to go out with the HF staff prior to purchasing a property to give them an idea of what needs to be done to receive a rental permit. Dennis said there is a big concern about lead. She said that lead can be mitigated if the windows are repaired. Dennis said, however, with the constant up and down with an old house, she believes there would be an ongoing lead mitigation issue. She said the HF only rents to families, and there is a very good chance there would be a small child living in that home. Dennis said that it is necessary to have egress, ease in operation, and every window has to work easily in order to get a rental permit. Dennis said that not all of the windows they want to replace are currently operable. She said she believes that with repair they would be operable, but they would still have the ropes and the weights, and ongoing maintenance might be required to maintain them as operable. Dennis said that they cannot repair the storms. She said that even if the windows are repaired, the storms are not going to match. Dennis said that Miklo and Peterson recommended a couple of contractors who would be able to repair the windows, and Dennis has some information from them stating that the storms cannot be repaired and the ones that are there cannot be replaced. Dennis said the other issue is that they cannot, because of the HF's funding sources, get the names of repair people and simply hire them. She said they have to go through a competitive bidding process, which takes time they don't necessarily have. Dennis said the biggest issue is making this safe for the family that will be living here, in terms of getting in and out of the home if need be and also in terms of lead. Downing asked Dennis if the HF had gone through a bidding process for the window replacement. Dennis confirmed this. She said they had a bid opening on March 5 h. Downing said the specifications call for repair, not replacement, and asked how that was handled. Dennis said that was the initial step they took, but then they had an alternate for replacement. Downing said that the window that the owner presented information on looks like a standard window pocket unit, without nailing fin, versus a full replacement window. Peterson said she checked the product, and it is a Jeld-Wenn insert. She said the contractor would only take out the sash and the stops, leave the old frame, and put the new window in. Peterson said it is a new window with its own frame and sash. She said that it would shrink the visible glass area and increases the frame width. Dennis said the frame of the window would have the lead they would be mitigating, and that doesn't move. She said it was mentioned that the frame may have lead. Dennis said they would mitigate that; they know they are going to have to do lead mitigation anyway. Peterson said that repair of the windows will give a window that is lead-free. Downing said that if the alternate bid was for replacement, there should be a bid for repair from the contractor as well. Spies said they found that replacement would be more cost effective for them, especially in the long run, for maintenance reasons. Peterson said that if long-term is more than 15 years, that is about the life on the replacement windows. She added that if the insulated glass ever breaks or the seal fails, one has to replace the entire window. Peterson said that an old window can be re -glazed. Dennis said she realizes the window won't last forever. Swaim stated that if the windows are repaired correctly, they can be as energy efficient, perhaps more so, than a replacement window. Petersons said that energy efficiency depends on the storm window; the long life of those windows requires the right storm. She said that these storms do not seem to be original, but they have served their purpose to protect the windows and probably need to be replaced with new so that there is something that operates easily. Dennis agreed that the storms are not original. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2012 Page 3 of 7 Regarding the bedroom windows, Wagner asked if they are large enough to be egress windows or if they would have to be casement windows. Peterson responded that to restore, one does not have to make that change; she said that if the windows are replaced, they would have to be turned into casement windows. She added that the application is for casement windows. Wagner said there are seven windows total to be replaced and asked how many would be casement windows. Peterson said there are two bedrooms, so at least one in each bedroom. Wagner said four would then be casements and three would be double hung. Peterson said that the double hung would be the two on the left in the living room and the one she showed on the other side of the house, which is a hall. Wagner stated that one thing about the four casement windows is that the combination storm screens, when one replaces some but doesn't replace others, stop matching. He said if one replaces the four double hungs with casements, the combination storm screens have to go then, because one cannot open the window with that in place; it would just be a screen. Michaud said that casements can have a learning curve for some renters. She said also if there are some double hung windows and some casements, the windows would not match. Baker asked how much the window will be reduced in size by doubling the frame — how wide the frame is going to be. Wagner said that if one stands on the inside of the window, then takes out the first box, then takes out the lower sash, takes the ropes out, then takes out the stop to get the upper one out, and then there will just be the jamb on either side. He said there is then the rough opening that the new window slides into. Wagner said it would then have a track that the replacement windows slide into, and then they stop up against the outside stop. He said there is maybe an inch and one-half lost, with three-quarters inch on either side, and then there are the new sashes, which are metal clad. Miklo said that, in terms of the guidelines, they do not allow the pocket where the entire new window can be slid in. He said they allow sash replacement. Miklo said that if the Commission determines that these windows are badly deteriorated, which is the first step, then the applicant would have to use an approved design, which the proposal is not. Peterson said she did not know what one would gain, because this would still involve dealing with lead paint if new sashes are installed. She said the sashes here are good quality. In terms of deterioration, Miklo said it basically involves maintenance. He said the putty would need to be replaced, and the exterior would need to be painted. Miklo said one would want to do the interior paint as well, which would mitigate the lead. He said there was quite a bit of cracking of paint on the exterior stop, which probably should be replaced, and that would again mitigate lead. Miklo said that when there is an application for window replacement, the owner is asked to supply some evidence of deterioration, which is usually done with a photograph. He said there is usually obvious rot, dry rot. Miklo said the photographs in this case did not show that, so staff looked at the windows and found that the sashes are actually in good condition, and the glass was in good condition. Regarding the lead -based paint, Wagner said abatement means to get rid of it, and then one can encapsulate it. He said that abatement means one has to get it out of the house completely. Wagner said it is a perfectly acceptable practice to encapsulate it. He said that one can paint over it with a latex paint, and chances are that has already been done. Miklo said that most of the lead paint is probably on the interior woodwork of the house. He said that the exterior stop probably should be replaced, and most window repair people would replace that. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Wagner said that simply to get the windows out, one would have to take out the first stop, and the parting stop. He said one takes the windows out whether they are replacement windows or non -replacement windows, or restoring them or putting in replacement windows; one still has to take the windows out. Regarding the parting stops, Wagner said one would buy new ones anyway or would use new ones that are wood. He said it is almost impossible to get a sash out without breaking it. Wagner said it is a stock product that one can buy. Downing asked if the woodwork was originally stained. He said there is always a chance that if it were stained and not painted until the last 41 years that the paint would be latex and not lead. Dennis said that the City did the lead testing. She did not have the results with her. Dennis said that the HF does a lot of lead mitigation or encapsulation but tends not to do abatement. Wagner said that abatement refers to everything. Dennis said that the HF currently has 141 rental units. She said they were invited by the City Planning Department to be a partner in the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership. Dennis said the HF has 20 years of experience in acquisition and rehabilitation. She said she has really good people doing the work. Miklo asked Dennis if this was a conservation district when the HF purchased the property. Dennis confirmed this. Miklo asked if Dennis was aware of the requirements. Dennis said she looked them up on the web. Miklo said the question before the Commission is whether the application meets the requirements in the guidelines. He said the first question is whether the windows are badly deteriorated. Miklo said he would defer to Peterson, who inspected the windows, on this question. Miklo said if the Commission determines that the windows are deteriorated to the extent that they should be replaced, a replacement product that does not change the openings, etc. should be approved. He said that Peterson has made her recommendation on both of these counts, and it is up to the Commission to decide. Peterson said the application is for seven insert replacement windows. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 1301 Muscatine Street as presented in the application for the replacement of windows. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 0-6 (Ackerson. Litton. McMahon and Thomann absent). Dennis asked if this is a final decision. Miklo said the decision could be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Wagner stated that for the cost of the replacement windows plus the installation costs, which is just the cost of these windows which would not be allowed anyway, one could probably get the windows at least restored and the lead - based paint taken at least away from the window sashes and sill for that much or less. He said that might also leave resources to buy new storms to make them work. Spies asked, if they repair the windows and replace the non-functioning storms on the seven windows, they would have to have approval. Miklo replied that storm windows do not require approval. Michaud asked if there is a replacement product for new ropes. Downing said there are cotton and nylon combination ropes and said that it is important to get the right diameter rope. Wagner agreed that if they are too small, the ropes get hung up on the pulley. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Peterson said there were three certificates, one of which was a chimney removal for the previous applicant. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON POTENTIAL LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS. Jefferson Street National Historic District. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Swaim said the subcommittee met earlier in the day for about an hour. She said the subcommittee mainly discussed the Jefferson Street District and basically just laid out the timeline of Jefferson Street going through the public hearings, etc. Swaim said the subcommittee discussed some of the issues that might be encountered, including the numbers of houses. Swaim said the meeting was just to lay some groundwork in terms of Jefferson Street and discuss what issues might be similar to the Melrose District. Melrose National Historic District. Regarding the Melrose District, Swaim said the subcommittee felt it best to become more familiar with the neighborhood. She said that Walker, the district representative, agreed to give a walking tour of the neighborhood, after which the subcommittee will hold more meetings. Swaim said the subcommittee in some cases will be going through the same steps for the two districts. She added that they may differ in terms of speed and involvement and such but will basically proceed at the same time. Swaim said that, weather permitting, May 21 or May 29 or May 30 were suggested as potential dates for a walking tour for the subcommittee. She asked members to let her know by e-mail which dates would work the best. Swaim said she has received information from Walker so that everyone has the same documentation on the district. Walker said that in 2008, the neighborhood submitted a document to the Historic Preservation Commission at its February 28, 2008 meeting. She said she would like to present that again in an update and perhaps summarize the discussions that took place at that time. Swaim said the subcommittee got a good start. Michaud said the subcommittee had a lot of good ideas and plans to contact a lot of people for support. REPORT ON IOWA STATEWIDE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE. Swaim said that she and Peterson attended the State Historic Preservation Conference in Decorah. She said there were discussions that were very helpful, including a discussion on federal and state tax credits. Swaim added that the keynote speaker was Donovan Rypkema, who has written extensively on the subject of Historic Preservation. Rypkema spoke specifically about the economics of Historic Preservation and is trying to put together a statement on the economic value of historic places; the jobs that are created; and savings created in terms of money, landfill use, etc. Swaim said there are not a lot of figures available in terms of communities similar to Iowa City. She said there are a lot of other ways to look at the value of an historic district, rather than just through aesthetic value. Swaim said she attended a session regarding window rehabilitation and preservation presented by David Wadsworth, who had trained at the Campbell Center, which consists of an old college building or two that has its students come in and work on rehabilitation projects. Swaim said Wadsworth took attendees to tour a building in Decorah where he had redone the windows. Swaim said it was a very invigorating and informative conference. Peterson said she attended a session on log houses that discussed the history and presented a hands-on restoration guide. OTHER: Swaim said that the Commission is looking for someone to fill Alicia Trimble's at -large spot. She said if anyone has suggestions to let staff know. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Miklo said that an e-mail was sent regarding some training on May 22 from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Public Library. He said it will basically cover how to conduct the meetings to stay within the scope of the Iowa Open Meetings Act. Miklo added that it will also review how to be effective as a Commission. He encouraged Commission members to attend. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 12, 2012: MOTION: Michaud moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's April 12, 2012 meeting, as written. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Ackerson, Litton, McMahon and Thomann absent). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z _O U) 0 Z O Q W m W w IL O H _N M T N T T T T T O T M T O N T T O X X X X X X W) 0 0 0 0 0 N X X X X X X X X X 0 0 M X X X X X X X X 0 0 0 X X X X X X X N O O 0 N X X X X X X X X X 0 T a x M d N M d `a N N It M N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ M M M M M M M M co M M W F- ca Q Q W J w J Z Y = Q � Q V L 3 z a z a z Op W Q ZO G C9 N Z Z ui m FX Cie Z = Q LU Z Q m Z O � F- E L O v� N O v)z X C Zz N 0) C (D cn m m 2.0<Z o a Q u n z n u w u XOOz I w Y