Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-2012 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, December 13, 2012 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma ) 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. 818 S. Summit Street (replace entry door) 2. 331 N. Gilbert Street (renovate front porch; remove rear stair and entry addition; new deck) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff F) Discuss Jefferson Street Historic District City Council Meeting December 18, 2012 G) Follow-up on Brick Sidewalks H) Consideration of Minutes for November 8, 2012 I) Adjournment Staff Report December 7, 2012 Historic Review for 818 South Summit Street District Summit Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Ted Heald, is requesting approval for an alteration project at 818 South Summit Street, a contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. The project consists of window removal and entry door replacement at the south porch. Apnlic,-tble Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.13 Windows Staff Comments This two story frame house was built c.1900, and is a transitional design. It features the hip (pyratnidal) roof and shallow projecting gable wings of simplified Queen Anne design, but it also has Nco-classical cornice returns. The front porch, with its very slender posts, is not original to the house, and the one story wing on the southeast corner also appears to be a later addition. Construction dates for these additions are not known. Per the Site Inventory Form, historic integrity is impaired by the front porch, and by the application of replacement siding, but the basic shape acid proportions of the house remain intact and the house is a contributing structure in the district. At the November 2012 meeting, the Commission reviewed a roof and window replacement project for this house. The current project consists of window removal and entry door teplacement at the same south porch. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing door and narrow double -hung window at the south porch entrance, then infill the wall at the removed window, and install a new door. The opening for the new door may be moved closer to the center of the wall. The existing door is a wood panel door with a half Gte. The guidelines recommend repairing rather than replacing an historic door. If a door is badly deteriorated, then replacing it with a new or salvaged door, similar in size, material, style, and appearance, is also recommended. A new door should have a wood screen door that accepts sashes with glass or screen. The door trim should match that of the other doors and windows in the house. And, if the door or screen door is made of a wood substitute, then the substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and match the style and appearance of the historic doors. Modern, flush door styles arc not allowed. Natural Finish aluminum storm doors are not allowed. Regarding removal of the existing window, the guidelines caution against detracting from the overall fenestration pattern. Appropriate siding that matches the existing is also recommended at the itl-Filled wall. In Staffs opinion, the existing door and window are not significant features of this house, and the proposed changes will not adversely affect the appearance or integrity of the house. Product information for the new entrance door and any new screen door must be provided by the applicant, and reviewed by Chair and staff for compliance with the guidelines. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new door at 818 South Summit Street, as presented in the application, with the following condition: Provide product information for new door and screen door; Final review and approval by Chair and staff. nw� -I . I t s !! u F, c• i Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: I l / 'a,9 1 1 �• ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minorreview 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 PC➢ 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: /Gc,l tfecr�� Email: �y Phone Number: /yy/ Addresses � ,sLcirnh-t !� J /_ / 0 City:r�cr CL— t/ State: T/f• Zip Code 5'22Y"9 ❑ Contractor/ Consultant Name: Email! Phone Number: ( ) Address: City: State: Zip Code: Proposed Project Information Address: ev C `'4imM� L'7t f f Use of Properly: It hicr l Date Constructed (if known): Historic Designation �, (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) �Nr 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 ❑ Norlhside 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: 13 Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ moor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product In Formation ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/constmction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building FIcvations ❑ Photographs ❑ product Information ❑ Construction of new building Q Building Elevations n Floor Plans ❑ Photographs n Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 far materials which need to he included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: _ f'y1G1✓(/r'i ci F�c/c�Y �%C�%� UI/l�, P/ L'!.�% /'I C/�UUJ r.-/cSf S J � Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: pp�iulmi,JLislpmslapp fur hisWricrevicw,dm IZ/I1 Staff Report December 7, 2012 Historic Review for 331 N. Gilbert Street District: Northsidc Illstoric District Classification: Key Contributing The applicant, Prestige Properties Development, is requesting approval for an alteration project at 331 N. Gilbert Street, a Key Contributing property in the Northside. Historic District. "1'he. project consists of renovation work at the front porch, renovation work at the rear of the house, and the addition of a deck. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.10 Porches 4,13 Windows 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.2 Decks and Ramps Staff Comments This two story frame house was built c.1900; architect and builder are unknown. It is an early example of the American Foie -square form, with a steeply pitched hipped roof and a gable wall dormer above a second story bay window on the front facade. A two-story bay addition is set beneath a gable roof on the south facade. A low-pitched hipped roof porch extends across the front with the north third now enclosed. There is a pediment above the wide entrance steps. Slender columns rest on paneled pedestals, connected by a replacement balustrade with wide -spaced square balusters. When the north third of the porch was enclosed, c. 1991, the cottage window was moved forward to the front wall. The porch skirting has diagonal latticework design. Fenestration includes 1-over-1 doublehungsash and the cottage window with beveled glass transom. The house is set on a concrete block foundation and is clad in vinyl siding with a profile similar to narrow clapboard. In June 2012, staff conducted a Minor Review and approved a COA for Jeld Wen clad wood sash replacements. In July 2012, a Certificate of No Material N',ffect was issued for roofing replacement. The proposed project consists of renovation work at the front porch, renovation work at the rear of the house, and the addition of a deck. The applicant intends to restore the front porch to its original configuration, so that the enclosed space is removed, and the east wall and cottage window are moved back to their original location. At the rear of the house, on the west side, an added exterior stair and exit door will be removed. A small cnui, addition at the rear of the house, on the north side, will also be removed, and the window above will be relocated to align with other first floor windows. The new deck is planned for the south side of the house where there is an existing back door; windows will be added to the existing one-story back entry area. The applicable guidelines for porches recommend the following: repairing historic porches and conserving as much of the historic material as possible; replacing badly deteriorated components with new ones that match dre historic components in design and material; using vertical grain fir porch flooring for its resistance to weathering; reconstructing balustrades and handrails to match original, or to match all appropriate historic style; maintaining the wood steps; and leaving the support piers exposed and filling the space between with historic -style skirting. Any wood substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and retain the appearance of wood. Unpainted treated wood is disallowed. Renovation of the porch will require construction of new porch railings. The guidelines for balustrades and handrails include recommended designs with exact sizes and proportions. For this house, the square -spindle baluster design is most appropriate, and would be installed between the existing porch columns. The same square -spindle baluster design would also be appropriate for the new deck:, as well as skirting, trim, and stair design to match the front porch. Note that this deck is planned for the back of the house, but as this is a corner lot, it will be visible from Gilbert Street. The project also includes new windows at the back entry/porch area, and a new or relocated window on the north elevation. The application does not include information on these windows, but clad wood windows similar to the approved Feld Wen sash kits would be acceptable. Regarding the second floor door on the west elevation to be removed as part of this project, it is likely this opening was originally a window and the Commission should consider the appropriateness of truing it now. As the guideIlncs caution against detracting from the overall fenestration pattern, a new window in this location may be a better option. In Staffs opinion, the proposed exterior work will be an improvement for this house, and generally the project meets the guideline requirements. More specific information is required for final approval, including product information for new windows and doors, replacement siding, and trim; dimensions and details for the new deck and deck railing; and more detailed information on replacement of the balustrade and handrails on the front porch. Staff recommends that the details and finish of the new deck match the details and painted finish of the front porch. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 331 N. Gilbert Street, as presented in the application, with the following conditions: • Provide product information for new xvindows and doors; • Provide product information for replacement siding and trim; • Provide design information for the front porch balustrade and handrails; • Provide design information for the new deck and deck railing; • Final review and approval by Chair and Staff. At 6;7.4qW._t. y 1111lI`1�:+ f�r. 11 HAIJ1111111�� A5'gill a�1-=rmmr=rrrrrrrrrrAj v I Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pulsuant 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 Prds&rvarinn Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/ilPhandbook I -or Staff Usc: Date vu bill itled:.„ ❑ Certificate ofNeMaterial rfl'ecL ❑ Certificate ol'Appropinlileness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermcdialcmview ❑ Minor leview The FOC does not review applications ror 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 arc due in the pCD office by noon on Wednesday du'ac weeks prior to the meeting. See nuaehed document For application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please chock primary contact person) lr�lroperty Owner Name:-,-RrP'-(-liel.Z p—.__--- E:mail:_-''+�.I(1! CG.-•-C1=xx� phone Address:-3?1 �:....� JLWY �S' -_Ste- 2� City: �n,_ a �.yl _ - ----- C Stale: _- ❑ Ccntnicfor/CnnsultailLName:.P, rim Email: a-VClI t'?z6fR t`m CD�'h PhoncNumbcr:(3j 1._`7fZ-_7.6:Li4.�_X.5 ._ �'...._ Address:_�'1`�l//';�— City: _T � Siam, �A Zip Cads: 5 6-2 + Proposed Project Information u sc or propurty: _17a.. L-keg4� -9-t -- Date ConStrUOted(if known): BD-L. Historic Designation (Maps are Ioceted in the f-lis[aric I'mservalien Ilandbook.) ❑ Tltis properly is a loual HSLOIe landmark OR CY'This properly is within a historic or conservation dislricl (choose localion): Cl [trowin Slrecl I IislVrie UisIflci ❑ College Crecn I lislorir: District ❑ Hasl College Sacel 1ltsloric 1)istriet ❑ 1.on1,,['cllow Historic District ..Q1 No, ihslde Historic District ❑ Summit SLreeL tllstnric District Q Woodlawp Historic Dislricl ❑ Clark, Strcct Conscrvnlion Dislriot ❑ College Hill CVnscrvatiQn Dismic t ❑ Dcarharn ;(real Conservation Dislricl ❑ Cinvel'ltttr•L.acan SII'Cel t:Vll; CI'vn11017 District Within the district. LhN property is classified as: 0 Contributing 0 NonoonuibuOm 0 Nnnllisioric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processc<l, please IneIUde all listed malcrials. Applications without nccessaly materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, parch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Root Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Sitc Plans ff Alteration CI ypically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch rcplaccmcnVconstructioq baluster repair, ur similar. If the project is it minor alteration, photographs and drawings to dcscribc the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product lntormation ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Hlevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photognrphs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailine 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 chanbc its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Otltcr: ❑ Product Information Plcasc contact the Prescivation Planner at 350-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: �:_' r i i? ' ' -t > s'S{.pr. �. .. ;.r � 1. c3t c: L\ —%-r> i.� .G"✓'-s= Y1C_-�_.--- -- CC,rci fIy_✓ Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: ppdndniOil8gi s/app_for_historicrcvluw.doc 12111 Li I [VING ARE -A LIVING AHLA 1206 sq It 1101 SO. FT. Existing windows not shown BEAM ABOVE P05T HERE REMOVE KALLS ---- VNINO ROOM FIREPLACE LIMNS ROOM ALLS ITS APPROX V-O' OFEN CAJT KALL-S BACK, BEAM ABOVE P05T WFZr LIVINS ROOM REW,H DOORS IS4 5TUDY LEAVE 5TAR5 HERE FUTLRE %okER 411a e VA o I'JG M1-iFil. � tz' t_� t y. �' �� J I '�� � S C' N. n d a-`l : i:`�.. Ry �, ♦ ,�.9'r V �'�� ar V.A A r F • '. X ,, �R�aiPc.'�JV�Li.,�e.: 4 rr I ♦ WORK I 'll l,f t p� _1 hrl` ,. 4 No" I I immmomm-i 4, N 6+b MEMORANDUM Date: December 7, 2012 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Cberyl Peterson, Preservation Consultant Re: Certificates of No Material Effect, Intermediate Reviews, and Nlinor Reviews The Historic Prescrvquon I Iandbook requires a report to the I IPC at each meeting of any projects that have been approved administratively. Below are the projects approved since the November report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 604 Iowa Avenue (roofing replacement) 608 Dearborn Street (:Moffitt house — chinmey reconstruction) Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review 601 S. Governor Street (new root) Minor Review — Pre -approved items — Staff review 818 S. Summit Street (new windows) 522 N. Linn Strect (replace stairs at rear porch) MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2012 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Baldridge, Esther Baker, William Downing, Shannon Gassman, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Frank Wagner David McMahon Sarah Hektoen, Chery Peterson, Bob Miklo Ted Heald, Miriam Belli, Michelle Wiegand, Mary Bennett, Mark Hartstack RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 818 S Summit Street. Peterson said this property is on the east side of Summit Street and showed a photograph of the front of the house; the back, which is the east; and the side, which is the south. She said the project involves roof repair and the replacement of three windows — one fixed window, a casement, and a slider. Peterson said that when the application arrived, the work had already been started. She said her conclusion was that the roof can be compliant without the overhang; it needs to be cut back so it matches the east overhang. Peterson stated that the windows are not compliant, and she did not have a chance to do any work with the applicant before the meeting. Ackerson asked what makes the windows non -compliant. Peterson responded that the windows do not match anything else on the house. Heald said he is the owner of this duplex that was built in 1895. He said it has been through a long history. Heald said the house was modified long ago and was clad with siding that is either aluminum or steel. He said it was rebuilt using bad materials and recycled materials sometime back in the 1940s. Heald said all the work that was done on the house when it was basically a lean to, back before zoning, was done with recycled wood. He said it was built with bad materials, and the roof has been leaking. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Page 2 of 16 Heald said he was having the routine inspection for the renewal of the rental permit, when they found a problem with one of the kitchen outlets. He said that is when they looked up in the drop ceiling. Heald said he did not know he had to get a permit to do this kind of deferred maintenance. He said it is just repairing and improving what once was. Heald said he is really in support of what the Commission is doing in keeping the neighborhood as beautiful as it is. He said however, he thinks that, even with the information that Peterson gave him, the building is considered non -historical, there are no original windows there, and it would be out of place to do anything like putting up shutters and weighted windows. Heald said he assumed his project was acceptable since the windows are not out of keeping with any of the other windows that are there — there are no original windows, because they were all replaced back when they didn't make things too well. He said this new work is not facing on the street; it faces an empty, large lot that faces on the train tracks. Heald said he is hoping for a determination that this has no material effect on the historic character that all of the neighbors are trying to preserve. He said he honestly did not know he needed a permit. Heald said even the Commission's own recommendation about windows addresses the situation where something has already been modified, and an owner does not have to go back to shutters and filigree like they had in the past. Peterson said the recommendation is that the roof could be modified to eliminate the deep overhang. She stated that the recommendation would be to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the windows; these windows were already installed when the application was received. Swaim said that one thing the Commission does to try to prevent this situation occurs in the spring, before the construction season begins, when a letter is sent out to all property owners in historic and conservation districts reminding them that if they are undertaking construction projects, that because they are in a district, if the project requires a building permit, the owner would need to go through the design review process with the Commission. She said she understood the owner undertook this because of an interior issue, and then one thing has led to another. Heald said he would regret having to change the overhang. He said the older one was falling down, and the new one is an improvement. Heald said he does not think it impairs the historical character of the building. He said he did not think he needed to go through this process, because the property is a permitted, non -conforming use, and all the windows are already long gone. Heald said there is nothing he was putting in that was violating any of that. He said the rest was just deferred maintenance. Wagner asked if a permit was pulled for the electrical work on the inside. Heald said that has already gone through. Wagner said the owner should have been notified at that time about the required Commission review. Miklo said that both the windows and the roof work would have required a building permit. He said the error was in not getting a building permit to do that work. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Page 3 of 16 Downing asked if the house is contributing. Swaim said that it is marked as non-contributing and non -historic on the application form. Peterson said that it is listed as contributing on the district map. She said she did not fill out the application form. Miklo said that contributing means that the property generally has its original, historic design. He said that it may have had some alterations, such as the siding, but the general form of the building is historic. Miklo stated that non-contributing or non -historic means that it has been changed to such an extent that one would not recognize it as an historic building or that it was built after a certain date. Downing said he also wanted to note that it is not because it is in an historic district that it requires a permit. He said this kind of work in any area of the City would require a building permit. Downing said it just happens that because the property is in an historic district, that permit also requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission. He said it is not because this property is on Summit Street that a permit is required; it is because the owner is replacing the roof and replacing the windows. Downing said the contractor should be aware of that also. Miklo said at this point, what staff is recommending is that the roof be approved. He said that on the porch, there is not quite the deep overhang, so this could be modified to match what is on the porch. Miklo stated that staff recommends that aspect of the project. He said staff will talk to the applicant about what is an appropriate window pattern and what was there before this work was done. Heald said the porch itself needs repair. He said that would be an exterior repair. Heald said the whole thing kind of slips down and could use improvement. Swaim said those kinds of issues could be discussed with staff when the owner is ready to address any other repairs or changes. She said that the Commission currently needs to discuss the issues of the roof and the windows. Michaud asked if there are photographs of what was present before the picture window. Heald said that he could not find any. He said this is not facing on the street and is not visible to passersby. Michaud said what is visible from the street and the alley is the overhang of the addition roof. She said it can be seen on the side facing the east; it is about a foot. Michaud said the south facing one should then also have a foot eave. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for the roof overhang for 818 South Summit Street, on the condition that the south overhang is cut back to match the overhang on the east side. Litton seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (McMahon absent). MOTION: Litton moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for the three new windows at 818 South Summit Street, as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 0-10 (McMahon absent). Swaim asked Peterson if she could work with the applicant regarding the windows, including learning what type of windows were on the house originally. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Page 4 of 16 611 Oakland Avenue Peterson said this property is in the Longfellow District. She said the project includes remodeling at the back of the house and the construction of a new, screened porch. Peterson showed photographs of the front and back of the house and the mudroom that would be remodeled. She said it is mostly just saving the foundation and the roof; everything gets rebuilt. Peterson said the screened porch would be added on to the west. Peterson said the report mentions the new skirting matching what is already on the front of the house. She said she included all of the drawings in the packet. Peterson showed the proposed plan in which the mudroom becomes part of the house and the porch is added. Peterson said the construction materials include fiber cement board siding and a plastic composite for the exterior floor decking. She said the applicant intends to recycle or reuse some of the original foundation blocks. Michaud asked if the outside entrance to the basement would no longer be functional. The applicant responded that that is correct; she said they are eliminating the exterior door that goes directly down the basement stairs. She said the clearance at that back door is narrow, and the door itself is very narrow and not used at this point. The owner said that is the only way to get into the basement directly from the outside, but there is also an interior door to the basement stair. Peterson said this seems to comply with all of the guidelines. She said there is a place in the guidelines that says the skirting should fit between the porch piers, and she mentioned that in the report as a suggestion. Peterson said that otherwise, everything is wrapped in the new skirting to match the front of the house. MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 611 Oakland Avenue, as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (McMahon absent). 512 South Summit Street Peterson said this is a project for a skylight on the south slope of the roof of a house on Summit Street. The house is on the east side of the street. She said the dimensions are listed as 36 by 52, and she was unsure of the orientation - whether the width is 52 or 36. Peterson said it is not on a front elevation and seems to be compliant. She said she believes it will be flush with the roof in the same plane as the roof. Belli, the owner of the house, said the dormer is divided on the inside of the house. She said the room that is above the room downstairs has only that one little window — that is all there is in that room. Belli said the one in the middle is dead; it only goes into the attic. She said the third one that is farthest to the left gives onto the stairs. Michaud said she is a little hesitant, because there is a very pronounced architectural feature on the first floor, with the boxed -out bay. She said those are very strong vertical rectangles. Michaud said she thinks the 36 wide Velux will be disproportional to that. She said she also has HISTORIC PRF,SF.RVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Page 5 of 16 experience with skylights being quite a heat leak. Michaud said a skylight loses heat in the winter and gains it in the summer. She said whatever shape one would get, if it is a large one, she would suggest getting an insulated shade contained within. Michaud said she thought a narrower shape would give plenty of light without conflicting with the design of the existing very narrow, rectangular windows. Peterson said that 52 inches is also a big dimension for the vertical. She stated that 24 by 48 would be very generous. Michaud agreed that would add a lot of light, especially if it is on the south side. Belli said she would need to discuss any change in dimension with her husband. Michaud said it depends somewhat on how wide the rafters are, since they are the support structure of the roof. She said they are usually spaced for this age of house at 24 inches. Michaud said otherwise one would be cutting into them and reframing. She said it is probably better to stay within a rafter -width for the strength of the roof. Swaim said the Commission could stipulate that the final details would need to be worked out with staff. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 512 South Summit Street, as presented, with the condition that the applicant meet with staff to determine how wide and tall the skylight will be. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (McMahon absent). 518 Bowery Street. Swaim said this application has several items for review and came with the revised agenda She asked the applicant if there are revisions to any items in the application. Hartstack said he will be doing the renovations to this building and also will be the property manager once it gets up and running. He said he represents Steven Rosenberg, the buyer of the property. Hartstack said they are not withdrawing any items, as far as he is aware. Peterson said this is the building that recently was designated as a local landmark. She showed photographs of the property, including the newer garage at the back that belongs on the property and the fence that connects the garage to the back, lean-to part of the building. Peterson said the proposal includes removing the garage and fence so that parking can be installed. Peterson said this building would be commercial in use. She said the application asks for approval of door replacement and window replacement in front and painting the metal roof. Peterson said that as part of this application, the side doors would be restored — the one that is blocked in with the plywood would be filled in with stucco, and the door with the transom is non- functional at this time. She said part of the application is to restore that door so that it is functional and would swing out as it would have historically. Peterson said that swinging the door out is problematic, because the alley is so close, and it is not code -compliant to swing the door out over the alley. She added that if the door were modified to swing in, it would be hitting the stairs. Peterson said her recommendation would be HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Novcmbcr 8, 2012 Page 6 of 16 to restore it from the outside but maintain the existing attic access the way it is now without an interior change. Peterson showed a plan of the building and how the door would have to swing out to function, if the interior stair was restored. She showed a section view of what the intact, original stair looks like. Peterson said that everything seems to meet the guidelines on the front, including taking down the awnings, replacing the front windows, and replacing the door. She said her only recommendation would be to provide more specific details on the products. Miklo stated that there is a building code that would not allow the door to swing out into the alley for safety reasons. He said the building is right on the property line, which is another reason the door should not swing out onto the public property or right-of-way. Swaim said the sale of this property is pending, and the applicant's representative is not representing the current owner. Wiegand said she is the current owner and was not aware of the current application until this last week and was just present at the meeting as an observer. Hartstack provided copies of a document from Rosenberg regarding issues they have had with the stairs. He showed the interior stair photo, commenting that the bottom three stairs on the right are plywood and were added at some point. Hartstack said they would like to return the stair to its historical correctness. He showed a handout of the original stairs, which are still there, and said he would like to restore them to their original configuration. Michaud asked if the steepness would be acceptable for the current code. Hartstack stated that Tim Hennes has told him that this would be considered storage or attic access, and the steepness of the stairs would be fine with him. Swaim said those kinds of interior questions would not be addressed by the Commission in any event. Hartstack said they would be using the upstairs for storage space. He said the goal is to create a retail sales space and return the store back to its original use. Hartstack said that if they remove the bottom two treads and return the stair to its historical correctness, that would make it almost impossible to access from inside the building. He said that to make it accessible, they would be required to open the door out into the alley. Hartstack read from Rosenberg's memo to Peterson, "Thank you very much for taking time on Monday to see 518 Bowery in person so you could better understand the conflict between code compliance and historic preservation that is posed by this building. As you know, we are seeking to return this 19M-century structure to both its historic form and its historic function to the maximum extent possible." Hartstack read on, "Towards that end, we have gotten necessary approvals from Planning and Zoning and the Board of Adjustment. It would appear as though the remaining issues lie in the hands of the Historic Commission, which will meet tomorrow night. We have had a chance to review your staff report, and we are of the opinion that it fails to fully acknowledge the conflict between historic preservation and code compliance that the Commission must decide. As you know, the building department of Iowa City, which privileges code compliance over historic preservation, has informed us the only way that the rooms in the attic can be legally reached is by tearing up the old stairwell and reopening up the alley door so that it opens inward." HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Page 7 of 16 Hartstack read on, "As you know, a portion of the 150-year-old crippled stairwell was sealed over within the last 50 years. As part of our efforts to historically preserve this building, we are requesting permission from the Commission to remove that false covering on the portion of the stairwell and restore the cripple stairwell to its original 19t" century condition. As we read the guidelines, the Commission would not be fulfilling its responsibilities if it refused to grant us that permission and instead allowed the code compliance to be privileged and therefore compel us to rip up the stairway at the behest of the building department." Hartstack stated that Tim from the Building Department came down and informed them that the door would have to open in if it would be used. Hartstack said that Tim Hennes wanted them to take out the stairs and put a ladder in the ceiling. He said they are coming before the Commission to avoid that if possible. Hartstack returned to the letter, "Once a permission is granted, a second conflict between code compliance and historic preservation quickly rises to the surface. Just as the crippled stairwell fails to meet the current code because of its tread and configuration, once that stairwell is restored, the only functional access to the second floor would be to restore the entrance to the alley to its original condition as well. Restoring that entrance would require the door open out into the alley, as one cannot access the stairwell if the alley door opens in, and one cannot functionally access the second floor if the alley door does not open at all." Hartstack read on, "We recognize that this is not code compliant, but neither is the stairwell. While we understand opening the door to the alley is not code compliant, neither is it code compliant to preserve the stairwell. We also understand that one of the responsibilities of the Commission is to privilege historic preservation over code compliance. If the Commission were to adopt your staff report, recommending that the alley door stay sealed, while the stairwell be preserved, the Commission would be functionally denying us access to the second floor, as it is almost impossible to access the second floor, once the stairwell has been restored, other than through the historic access, through the alley, through the door opening out." Hartstack read on, "We do not believe it is within the authority of the Commission in the name of historic preservation to deny us any access to more than a third of the square footage of our property. We believe that that would represent a taking of property that is beyond the legal jurisdiction of this Commission. At the same time, we do not believe that the Commission has a right to deny our request to restore the stairwell, as we believe that the guidelines would mandate the preservation of the stairwell at our request." Hartstack continued to read, "Therefore, we would request that the Commission fulfill its function of privileging historic preservation over code compliance by granting us permission to return the stairwell and alley door to their original 191" century condition and function, opening outward into the alley as a means of access to the second floor through the stairs." Miklo said, as a point of clarification, that he does not believe that the building official is saying anything has to be removed. He said it may need to be brought up to code in terms of design, but this stairway configuration can remain as is. Peterson said the building official, Tim Hennes, has stated that the existing stairway can remain as it is, because it is attic access, not stairs but attic access. She said that Tim suggested the pull down ladder as a possible alternative to the existing stairs if they want the existing door to swing in. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Page 8 of 16 Downing said that whatever the Historic Preservation Commission says, the owner cannot void the building code. Miklo responded that there is a provision in the zoning code that allows the Board of Adjustment and the Historic Preservation Commission to waive some zoning requirements, but one is not allowed to waive Building Code requirements. He said that would have to go to the Board of Appeals, which deals with Building Code issues. Downing asked if swinging out across a property line involves the building code or zoning ordinances. Miklo said he believes it is affected by the Building Code. Downing said therefore whether or not they said the door could swing out doesn't matter, because the Building Code does not allow it to swing out. Miklo confirmed this. Downing said the stair can remain as it is and be used, and the Building Department is not requiring the owner to rebuild the stair into any other configuration, unless he wanted to have a door swinging in in that position. Peterson said that is correct. Hartstack asked if this is saying they could leave the stairs with a plywood attachment to it and not return it to its historical correctness. Peterson and Wagner said the Commission does not deal with and has no purview over the interior. Peterson said that she talked to Tim Hennes, and he assured her that because this is attic access, no change will be required to the existing interior stairs. Hartstack pointed out an area by the garage where there are a couple of concrete poles. He said he was not sure what they are for but thought they might be to keep people from running into the garage. Downing said they are called bollards and are to keep one from driving into the wall instead of in through the door. Hartstack asked if it would be possible to put those by the alley door to give some protection when opening the door out into the alley. Miklo said he did not believe so, and he did not know how the current poles got there. Peterson said there is a lot of parking off the alley, and it is heavily traveled alley. She said it would be a safety issue. Miklo said there is the possibility of someone walking out and being struck by a car. He said one would not expect to see a door swing out this close to a traveled alley. Hektoen, the Assistant City Attorney, said that Downing has summarized this well. She said the Commission's review is not to determine whether this complies with the building code or zoning code but is to determine the historic appropriateness of what is being requested. Hektoen said that from her perspective, the other thing that complicates the door is that it would require a temporary use of right-of-way agreement, which is a separate issue aside from a building code violation. She said the Public Works Director would not likely agree to allowing this temporary use of the alley, primarily because of safety concerns. Hektoen said the Commission does not have the power to waive compliance with the building code, as already discussed. With regard to the owner not joining in the application, Hektoen stated that if a permit is eventually issued to the applicant by the Housing Inspection Services, then that doesn't really get them anything if they don't have permission to be on the property. She said that if for some reason the transaction doesn't close, this action would not be taken. Hektoen said it doesn't really limit the use of the property; it is just another hurdle to cross to eventually do this work. She added that is why the owner is not required to join in the HISTORIC PRFSF,RVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Pago 9 of 16 application, because it actually doesn't encumber his or her land by making these sorts of applications. Bennett said she prepared the National Register nomination papers for this property. She said her interest is in the long-term future of this building, regardless of who the property owner is. Bennett said this is a rare, historical artifact that the Commission is dealing with here. Bennett said that one of the consequences and civic obligations of anyone who owns a National Register property is the need for careful consideration of any proposed modifications and, of course, cooperation with a governing body such as the Commission. She said she talked to Peterson and encouraged her to look at the property. Bennett said she feels that Rosenberg's memo has falsely represented a few things about the building. Bennett said that opening that door is not the only way the rooms in the attic can be reached. She said that whether the door opens into the building or out into the alley, it is still unsafe. Bennett said there is only one foot between the edge of the structure itself and where the City property line is for the alley. Bennett said the way they are proposing to do this, assuming the door is allowed to open one way or the other to allow direct access up the stairs, the only access to the upstairs would be from the outside. She said there would be no interior access to the second floor. Bennett said this is not practical or reasonable, given Iowa winters, that basically there is a structure where one cannot get upstairs unless he goes outside and shovels the snow. Bennett said the other part of this is that the historic stairs are there, but they are not aligned properly with the door. She said it is not shown clearly in the drawings. Bennett showed where the door is, when one comes down to the foot of the stairwell, in its original configuration if it were restored, and said the door is not in direct alignment. Bennett said it would be very problematic. Bennett said she is concerned about how much more of the original fabric would be put at risk in order to accommodate the proposed plans. She said the City has been more than cooperative in terms of defining this as an attic space so that the low headroom is not a problem. Bennett said she knows the Commission does not have purview over interior work. She said, however, that in terms of opening up that doorway or restoring those bottom three treads, she would advise the Commission against any approval, because she thinks the needs have been accommodated. Bennett said that for the applicant to say he is restoring that stairwell is a bit of a stretch. She said she also thinks it is clearly under the jurisdiction of the Commission how that doorway functions and not under the Board of Adjustment or any other City body. Bennett said it is a partnership between the City building code official and the Historic Preservation Commission. She said she does not agree with Rosenberg's assessment that this would block access to the second floor or one third of his property. Bennett said she feels that is an exaggeration of the case. Bennett said there were originally two doors that opened up onto the alley. She said the applicant has proposed, regarding the door that is currently covered over in plywood, to put stucco over it and basically remove any evidence of its existence. Bennett said she thinks it reflects the character of the original building and would prefer to see a recommendation that HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Page 10 of 16 would preserve it, possibly as a piece of plywood or to have an oil painting over it. She said there would be no memory or footprint of that opening if it is stuccoed over. Bennett stated that she also thinks it would be difficult to match the stucco to the original stucco so that it would always look like a patch or a mismatch on the building. Bennett said this is an example of her trying to preserve the character of the building as much as possible and preserve as much of the historic fabric as possible. She said she thinks this building will function just fine. Bennett said she did not know anything about what will develop with the potential buyers of this property, but accepting it as is is part of accepting an historic artifact as we find it and respecting it. Bennett encouraged the Commission to move wisely on this decision. Peterson showed an image of the building before the side door was covered with plywood. Michaud discussed the door on the north exposure and whether a gate could be put in the fence there. Hartstack said the fence and the garage will be removed. He said that door would be accessed for loading. Bennett said the building is only 18 feet wide, and the owner will have access through a back door that will require one to walk only about 20 feet to a stairwell. Swaim read staff's recommendation from the packet as to approve this with the following conditions: provide product information for replacement doors and windows and to provide the final design for the wall finish at the door infill area on the east side. She asked which door this referred to. Hartstack said this applies to the plywood -covered door. Peterson said she agrees that it needs to be delineated in some way. She said the applicant would provide the final design for that to be approved by staff and the chair. Swaim read the other recommendations: to maintain exterior appearance of existing door and transom on the east side. She said that would continue to then look as is. Swaim said the last recommendation is for final review and approval by the chair and staff. Michaud said she would like to see a photograph of the proposed front window. Hartstack showed a photograph of an old grocery store in Bethesda, Iowa. He said he would be doing the three over three front windows and a single, 36-inch wide, historically correct door. Hartstack said it was the only photograph he could find from a grocery store of this era. Hartstack said the goal is to restore this building to its historical correctness. Regarding the door to the right, Swaim said staff is recommending that it not be stuccoed over and that there be some kind of delineation that it was a door. Peterson said she would like to see some other kind of siding or infill there but not the stucco. Miklo said the best solution might be to put a salvage door there and recreate the look. Swaim said the door on the left and transom would then remain as they are. Hartstack said he does not think this is the original door. Bennett said it is a door from the period, with historical significant and should remain. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8. 2012 Page 11 of 16 Wiegand, the current property owner, said she has every reason to believe this sale will go through, because all of the contingencies have been met. She asked, should the sale not go through, if she would be bound to all the decisions made. Miklo replied that Wiegand is not required to implement the plan. He said if she is going to make any changes, this is the approved plan, but she could come back with a new plan. Wiegand asked about the awnings specifically. Miklo responded that she could leave them up, but this plan would take them down. Hartstack asked if there is a window of time, if this is approved, for implementation. Miklo answered that there is not a time limit for Historic Preservation Commission approvals, but he believed the time limit to utilize a building permit is six months. Bennett said she knows it is not the Commission's consideration as to how the interior ends up looking. She said, however, that when one looks at this building historically, the original structure did not have the addition on the back. Bennett said that what is inside that space right now is a restroom, shower, water heater, and furnace, which will all be rearranged. She stated that all of the piping and electrical conduits are exposed on the wall that was the north side of the original structure. Bennett said, for example, that the water heater vents out into the existing chimney. She said the new owners plan to remove the water heater and reposition it. Bennett said her concern is at what point the owners can be encouraged to respect that original north wall for what it informs us about the history of this building and not just be indiscriminately drilling holes or rearranging the interior contents and taking the original fabric that is there. She said the original clapboard siding is there; the original chimney is there; and one of the windows on the west is the original window that helps date this back to 1856. Bennett said that both of the windows on the north side should be kept intact as original fabric, although she overheard on Monday that the new owners wanted to replace them. She said there is a door and two windows on the north side of the lean-to part. Bennett said that where there is the brown, painted clapboard siding on the upper level, it extends down to the ground level. She said that is exposed when one is on the inside of the building and was part of the evidence she used for dating the building and is worth protecting. Baker said that Hartstack is a friend of hers, and they have discussed this property. Baker said she basically pointed him in the direction of relevant guidelines regarding the windows and that kind of thing. Miklo added that there has been some indication that there might be future window replacements. He said those would require review by the staff or the Commission. Regarding Bennett's point about trying to preserve the evidence, the clapboard and such on the north end, Swaim said she did not think the Commission could stipulate that, but she agreed that it should be preserved if it can be. She said that if it can be documented, it serves history, whether it serves historic preservation of the exterior or not. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Page 12 of 16 Hartstack said that where the stairs go up, on the north side of that, is where the clapboard siding is that can be seen from the inside, which would have been the original outside of the building. He said they are having to rearrange the building to meet ADA standards. Hartstack added that the City has recommended that the furnace, water heater, and mechanicals be hidden in a room or put separate from where the general public can get access to them, because this would be a retail space. Hartstack said they would therefore like to make some changes to the existing wall structure, but he has no desire to change the clapboards or anything else on the interior of that at all. He said he just needs to move the toilet, sink, and some mechanicals around. Hartstack said it should not affect the clapboard and hopes not to at all, because it is a really unique feature of this building to see the actual outside before stucco was added. He said most of the renovations in that room are to meet ADA and City compliance with a mechanical room. Michaud asked about the stucco, because it is also historic. Hartstack said he is not planning to remove that either. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 518 Bowery Street, as presented in the application, with the following conditions: that the applicant provide product information for replacement doors and windows; provide final design for wall finish at the door infill area on the east side; maintain exterior appearance of existing door and transom on the east side; and final review and approval by the chair and staff. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (McMahon absent). Bennett asked if there could be a statement made about the door. Miklo said the recommendation in the motion refers to the door remaining sealed and being restored on the exterior. He said that is pretty clear, and he does not believe the building official will permit the door to be opened, regardless. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Peterson said there is not anything particularly noteworthy. She said there were four reviews of no material effect and two intermediate reviews. DISCUSS PRESERVATION PLANNING FOR THE JOHNSON COUNTY FARM Baldridge said he represented the Commission at the get together of those interested in the building. He said the property is within the City limits. Baldridge said the County has done restoration and maintenance on the asylum. He said it is typical and correct on the inside. Baldridge said the County will have another meeting to see how to proceed and what needs to be preserved and what does not need preservation. He said there is a barn that is being used for storage that does not look all that sturdy, so he did not know what its future would be. Baldridge said the asylum is probably the most significant building in the best shape. He said that Rod Sullivan, the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, wants the Commission to have a representative to attend sessions regarding the Poor Farm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Page 13 of 16 Baldridge said the Farm was set up as a shelter facility for people who were disabled, mentally or physically. He said the asylum really looks almost like a jail, with cubicles. Baldridge said it is open space, yet it still looks like cells. Baldridge said the residents worked on the farm to the extent they were able. He said it was a facility run by the County to house people who were unable to live by themselves and whose families were unable to care for them for whatever reason. Baldridge said it had been a productive farming unit. Baldridge said the Board of Supervisors feels an obligation to address the deteriorating condition of the buildings that are still standing. Swaim said it is more of an historic site, although it is not generally open to the public without an arranged appointment. She said the Commission's role right now involves basically weighing in on any questions about maintenance or restoration. Baldridge said he would be willing to stay apprised of developments and inform the Commission. DISCUSS JEFFERSON STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT Plannina and Zonina Meetina November 15, 2012 Swaim said that after the Commission unanimously passed the motion to make this a local district, the next step is for the Planning and Zoning Commission to hold a public hearing on November 15 at 7 p.m. She encouraged Commission members to attend. Swaim said the way the Historic Preservation Commission will play a part in the presentation is that Miklo or Peterson will give a staff report. Swaim stated that she, as chair, will then speak as to why the Commission has approved this. She said that if there are comments that individual Commission members would like to make, they should make them as private citizens Swaim said that gives the members a chance to address other issues they may have individually. Swaim said that, assuming that the Planning and Zoning Commission passes this, the City Council would potentially discuss this at its December 4th or 18th meeting. She asked Commission members to be aware of the December meeting and invite others who are concerned about this to come and provide input. .1r:t:100 Ackerson stated that there are four properties on Johnson Street between Ronalds Street and Brown Street that have ancient brick sidewalks. He said the City, in the normal course of its review of sidewalk status, has sent three of the four property owners notices that they must repair or replace the brick sidewalks. Ackerson said he believes those are the last brick sidewalks in Iowa City. Miklo said they are the only ones he knows about. Ackerson said the neighbors and property owners there are a little bit upset, because they are getting hit by a rather large cost to replace the whole thing. He said if they were to replace and restore the brick, that would be even more expensive. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8, 20 ] 2 Page 14 of 16 Ackerson said he would like to have the Commission consider if the City should be asked to save these brick sidewalks. He said he personally would like to see them saved, because they are a part of the old City. Ackerson said that Brown Street is still brick, and if the City ever tries to pave Brown Street, the residents there will be up in arms. He said he thinks the same thing should be true of the sidewalks. Downing said there is actually an ordinance that the City cannot remove any more brick streets, they have to be repaired. Miklo said that is being done on Dewey Street right now. Regarding brick sidewalks, Downing said he believes the City has not taken any action at all. Miklo said they are trip hazards and need some attention. He said he believes they would need to be removed and then re-laid. Miklo said he did not think they could be patched in. He said he thinks they need to be pulled up, a solid base prepared, and then as many bricks reused as possible, although there would probably be a large percentage of replacement bricks required. Ackerson said that in the past, the City had a plan to re -lay the bricks on Brown Street like they did on Church and Bowery Streets. He said that at the time the street repair is done would be an ideal time to go in and work on the sidewalks. Miklo asked Ackerson if, between now and the next Commission meeting, he would be willing to draft a statement or letter that the Commission could then approve and send to the Mayor or City Manager regarding this issue. Ackerson agreed to do so. Michaud said that the Bradley Building, the Victorian gray house directly across from the Co -Op has been sold to Jesse Allen. She said that now all three of her floors will have a brick wall behind them. Michaud said she would like to propose some zoning or code that will require an ameliorative fapade for new construction that faces an existing historic home, just like balconies are not allowed right now facing single-family houses. Michaud said that 505 Washington Street is potentially going to be moved. otherwise it will be, she assumed, up for salvage and be removed. She said there is only one person there with a lease, which she believes is for another two years. Michaud said she thinks that is the only leverage to forestall a decision and find an appropriate use for the building. Regarding the fapade proposal, Swaim asked Michaud if that were something she would be approaching as an individual. Michaud said she had asked Allen if he could put a light-colored brick on the east side of the building, and he did look with her from College Green at the effect of the very large building behind hers. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 13 2012 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 11 2012 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: Swaim asked about the motion on page one and who had seconded the motion. The other Commission members did not recall. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 8, 2012 Page 15 of 16 Michaud said that on page nine, in the sixth full paragraph, the word "in" should be change to "and." MOTION: Litton moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's September 13, 2012 meeting, as written; the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's October 11, 2012 meeting, as written; and the minutes of the Jefferson Street Historic District October 11, 2012 Public Hearing, as amended. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (McMahon and Wagner absent). Regarding letters received, Baldridge asked if it were possible for individual property owners on Jefferson Street to be left out of the district. Miklo said the Commission would have to make the determination to draw the boundary to leave them out. Baldridge asked if the boundary could be redrawn to leave Saint Paul's Church out of the district. Miklo said there would be issues with creating a boundary that makes sense. He said that actually Saint Paul's could not be removed, because it is right in the middle, but properties on the edge could possibly be removed. Baldridge said the district should be contiguous, and Miklo confirmed this. Peterson said that right now, the proposed local district boundaries match the National Register District. Michaud said there are nine proposals for a College and Gilbert Street building that might have the Co-op in it. She said she thinks it would be good to write letters to the editor at this point or contact the Planning and Development Department. Michaud said there could be a 14-story or 20-story building on the east side of Gilbert Street. She said the scale of a building on the east side of Gilbert Street has to be discussed, because that is the beginning of residential in general. Michaud asked if the Commission would have design review of the justice center when it is reproposed. Miklo said he did not believe so. He said that if the Court House is a landmark, then the Commission would have review. Miklo said that it is on the National Register. Swaim suggested finishing this discussion at the Commission's next meeting ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O N _N 9 2❑ OW Up Z U Ow Q W cm T U Q N W ❑ fn Z W W Q' H a U¢ O F U) 2 z U M T N T 00 x x x x x x x x x x T T o x x x x x x x x x M W w W w T x x x 'O x x x 'o x 'O C) o 04 x x x x x x o x x o x I I x o x x x - x x x x W W W W T x x x� x x x x O O O O v T x j x x x x x x x m o W f W W W T _ x x x i _ x x _ x u) O O O O N x X x i x x x x x x V Q O j i Mxul xxo xxxxoxpl i N x o o x x o x 0 x x x N o x x x x x x x o x x T M le )O co co a a N N -e M LO a T T T T T T T T T T T T Lu x O) O) O) O) O) T T T W N N N N N N (N N N N N N W ~ M M M M M M M M a") M j M M � Z z z ❑ W a z z W -i W Y H 0 = _ ❑ IL ❑ ei W Q l O W W z N Q Z ❑ Z w Z p Z LLI Z Q Q J W W Y �: 2 Oo U 1 ❑ Q O to O Q a m❑ j y 3 a a F- 3 O 3 Cl O z rn c d m E O Z z Z N N w Y