The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-12-2013 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, December 12, 2013 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. 608 Grant Street (new French doors) 2. 415 S. Sunnnit Street (new door, new windows) 3. 113 S. Johnson Street (new window) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff F) Discuss increased noise levels adjacent to historic neighborhoods G) Consideration of Minutes for November 14, 2013 — HPC Meeting H) Adjournment Staff Report December 6, 2013 Historic Review for 608 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Michelle Provorse of Pro Home Solutions, is requesting approval for an addition, alteration, and repair project at 608 Grant Street, a Contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The proposed project consists of a new back deck, and French doors from the dining room to the deck; repair of a second floor balcony; stucco repair•, painting; and new roof vents. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.3 Doors 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.2 Decks and Ramps Staff Comments The Site Inventory lists this house as c. 1925 -1930. It is a two story house that is representative of Mediterranean Revival. The very low pitched hip roof, the stucco cladding painted white, the arched opening, and the use of wrought iron on the second floor balcony are identifying features of this style. While the house may not seem to fit well with the neighboring houses, the style was popular during the Twenties and Thirties and falls into the period of significant development in the Longfellow neighborhood. The proposed project consists of a new back deck, and French doors from the dining room to the deck; repair of a second floor balcony; stucco repair; painting; and new roof vents. The applicable guidelines for decks recommend locating a new deck on the back of the house, with the sides of the deck set in at least 8 inches from the sides of the house. New decks should be attached to the house in a manner that will not damage a historic wall, or other historic materials, or cause wood siding to deteriorate. The applicant needs to provide a plan, details, and list of materials for the proposed new deck. Decks are a pre -approved item for Minor Review, and the review and final approval can be completed by staff. Applicable guidelines for doors recommend adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in the house. If the new doors are not wood, then a substitute material may be approved if it retains the style and appearance of historic wood doors. The substitute material must be durable, and accept paint. In this case, installation of the proposed French doors will require a new opening in the existing exterior wall, and the Commission must approve this alteration. The applicant needs to provide exact location and product information for the new doors. In staffs opinion, a location on the back of the house is probably acceptable, and Chair and staff can complete the review and final approval of this work. The applicant also needs to provide details and a list of materials for repair of the balcony. The guidelines recommend repairing historic balustrades and railings, and replacing badly deteriorated components with ones that match the historic components in design and material. In this case, the components are wrought iron, and the guidelines do not address the specifics of this material. Building code requirements will be another consideration. The Commission may want to defer a decision on approval of this work, pending more information. Regarding the proposed stucco repair and painting, this is work that does not require a budding permit, and therefore does not require Historic Review. The guidelines do recommend choosing a color scheme that is consistent with the architectural style of the house. A light neutral color is appropriate for this style. Regarding the proposed roof vents, the guidelines for roofs recommend against installing mechanical devices, such as vents, on prominent street elevations. The applicant needs to provide product information and confirm the proposed locations. Chair and staff can then complete the review and final approval for this portion of the work. In Staff's opinion, the proposed project is generally acceptable, but more information is needed to complete the review. If the Commission approves this project with the conditions listed below, then Chair and staff can continue to work with the applicant, complete the review, and provide final approval. The only questionable portion of the work is the balcony repair, which may need to be reviewed by the Commission at a later date when more information is available. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 608 Grant Street, as presented in the application, with the following conditions: • Applicant to provide details and list of materials for repair of the balcony; • Applicant to provide location and product information for the French doors; • Applicant to provide locations and product information for the roof vents; • Applicant to provide plan, details, and list of materials for the new deck; • All of the above must be reviewed and approved by Chair and staff. r IF 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/14Phandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: --L_/ / / ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Majorreview ❑ 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 mouth. 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 Name: Email: Address: ❑ Contractor / Consultant Email: Address: City: Address: Use of Property:y Property Owner/Applicant Information , (Please check pnroM contact person) Phone Number: ( State: Zip Code: Proposed Project Information Historic (Maps M ❑ This nroneriv is a local historic landmark_ Constructed (if known): 11700 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 EL Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlavvn Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ DearbornStreet Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: 4k Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric Applieation 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, porcb, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Intbrmation ❑ 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. Ifthe project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product ]nformation ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product hdormation ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or my portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Fume Plans Lkr Rena ir or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs fl p.+a6., rnfhe '&;nn ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: G, ppdadmidh s0rWapp_ftwhistm mwiew.doc 12/11 Staff Report December 6, 2013 Historic Review for 415 S. Summit Street District: Summit Street Historic District Classification: Key Contributing The applicant, Katherine Walden, is requesting approval for an alteration project at 415 S. Summit Street, a Key Contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. The proposed project includes replacement of the back door; replacement of existing kitchen windows; and replacement of three pairs of existing windows in the rear addition, with two of the pairs downsized to single windows. Applicable Regulations and. Guidelines 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.13 Windows Staff Comments On the west side of Summit Street, this two story frame house from c. 1880 features a symmetrical facade with projecting pavilion entry. This pavilion has a shallow gable roof with cornice returns, and a half -window located in the gable. The roof of the house itself repeats the shallow pitch and has broad eaves with Italianate style brackets. Small rectangular half -windows are located between the brackets, opening to the attic. The front entry has double doors with a transom, and the first floor windows on the front of the house are paired and extend to the floor level. There is a single story bay on each side — a square bay on the north side and a polygonal bay on the south of the house. A broad porch extends across the front facade. This features square posts with chamfered corners and delicate saw -wood brackets. This house is a fine example of the late Italianate style with a high level of integrity. The garage/carriage house is considered a contributing structure. The Site Inventory notes that Margaret Keyes listed th s house as an 1883 construction for Catherine Reece, and Laurence Lafore said it was built in 1879 for Henry Morrow. The proposed project includes replacement of the back door. The back door opens from the screened porch into the back hallway. The plans for this project show a new door that is slightly wider, in a slightly adjusted location. The proposed door is a Therma-Tru Smooth -Star fiberglass door with half-light and panels. The Guidelines for doors recommend repairing historic doors rather than replacing them; if badly deteriorated, historic doors should be replaced with new or salvaged doors that are similar in size, material, style, and appearance. New door openings should be trimmed to match other doors and windows in the house. If the new door is not wood, then a substitute material may be approved if it retains the style and appearance of an historic wood door. The substitute material must be durable, and accept paint. In staff's opinion, the proposed door is an acceptable replacement. The proposed project includes window replacement in the kitchen. A pair of new casement windows will replace a pair of existing casement windows in the west wall. The new windows will fit in the existing opening. These windows open to the screened porch. The proposed project includes the replacement of three pairs of existing windows in the rear addition, with two of the pairs downsized to single windows. This area of the house is not original and the windows to be replaced are not historic. The windows are awning style, located in the north and south walls, in an existing first floor laundry room and second floor bathroom. Plans to remodel the first floor laundry room make it necessary to change the first floor windows on the north from a pair to a single window. The single window wit be centered in the existing opening. Plans to remodel the second floor bathroom make it necessary to change the second floor windows on the south from a pair to a single window. The single window will be at the west end of the existing opening. The second floor windows on the north will be replaced with a pair of new windows, which will fit without any changes to the size of the existing opening. Note that all of the existing windows on the west side of the rear addition will also be replaced. The existing sliding windows will be replaced with four pairs of metal clad wood double hung windows. A Minor Review of this work was completed by staff and a COA was issued in November. All of the proposed new windows — casements, awnings, and double -hung - will be Marvin Clad Ultimate. Where window openings must be in -filled, new siding is proposed to match existing siding. The Guidelines for windows allow replacement of deteriorated existing windows with new metal -clad solid wood windows. If a window opening is to be closed or relocated, the change should not detract from the overall fenestration pattern, and the closed opening should have siding that matches the existing and is pieced in to avoid continuous vertical joints. In staffs opinion, the proposed windows are acceptable replacements, and the proposed alteration of the fenestration pattern on this rear addition is acceptable. Staff recommends approval of this project. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 415 S. Summit Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: Provide trim at new door and windows to match existing door and window trim. Ilk, it top 111 .` � P J. ` fl`'L.�y is L fir: I 74 ip Jk id i R r• :i,..a I,� 1 ..: r� 1# ILL ho a a■ _A 'ern• 1; 'S IZr. ? - Vdi .1 is T i l 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: JA—/-2&/—L3 ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Majorreview ❑ 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. Owner/Applicant Information e Property Owner En4l:0AJ&o0 4 Q 4ie4&Vc&i cem PhoneNumberr. 6/() Address: _/ / /Ylm if_ �t ; y`�s.,)�, s'i u .,/ City: State: J, zip code: IEI Cont=toConsultant Name• ��i6 ✓'/' l i l fC/J Email:yCJ/,rk/� &lCQ&> Ca,&7 Phone Number: 1(/) lto—t2Oj.SY Address::-•�{O / y L/ j /' .Sf' II City: . 1 (2c J� %fiI State: 141_ zip Code- �z / Proposed ](Project Information Address: Use ofProperty: ('S/�UUII// Date Constructed (if known): Historic Designation (Maps ere located mthe fbstonc Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR Z This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Sheet Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northstde Historic District Y 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: V Contributing 12 Noncontributing 0 Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application call 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 ,,.,r ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans E eran (Typically projects entailing work such as siding andCw ndow repko mert�s, kylights, dow o allele , deck or porch repiwement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. I the prgecf n a minor alteration, photographs and dmwings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations I1/Photogmphs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construcdon 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.) u ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356r5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: Replacement of old 84"wide x 24" tall single -pane awning -type winds on north side of addition to house built in 1879, with new Marvin energy-efgicient awning windows of same ow size and shape. The second floor windows will be removed and new ones inserted in existing opening, with little disturbance to existing siding. The first floor windows will be removed and replaced with one awning unit approximately 1/2 the width of the existing double units. This is necessitated by the interior room layout requiring a wall where part of the large window currently sits. The remaining space will be insulated and filled and sided with matching siding. Materials to be Used: Marvin Clad Ultimate Awning windows: 2- 40x28 units mulled together upper bath, 1-40x28 unit lower bath. Stone white clad exterior, pine interior Exterior Appearance Changes: The upper window area will remain unchanged. The lower window will be reduced in width to 1/2 the size of the upper window to accomodate the interior remodeling. These windows, at the back of the house on its north side, are completely incongruous with the age of the house and its exterior millwork, so a modest modification and improvement in energy-efficency to one of these units will not harm the integrity of the overall presentation, we believe. d F40'' 41 ISM m 2Gtlp MeE. ab wNnlrm\J (_A y � I lol •� 3.k:S � o d bpp� M �ryMn tb � •�WMUNm ' 4qn wkelVe9uW4M Y�9 , �e C l +� �. I C yypp lV '0 fV " I II's 0 WM.YBRx t90 YXM%1B6 0 'a,_0 0 � �e >�.� . ❑ =gym _ � °I I LP if 0 S 1-5 OMS Ver. 0001.14.00 (Current) Product availability and pricing subject to change. UNIT SUMMARY Lammers Summit Remodel -Kathy Walden Quote Number: 54Y73XZ The following is a schedule of the windows and doors for this project. For additional unit details, please see Line item Quotes. Additional charges, tax or Terms and Conditions may apply. Detail pricing is per unit. NUMBER OF LINES: 5 TOTAL UNIT QTY: 9 EXT NET PRICE: USD 8,970.92 LINE MARK UNIT BRAND ITEM NET PRICE CITY EXTENDED NET 1 Side Awnings Marvin Clad Ultimate Awning 640.32 PRICE RO 41" X 281/2" 3 1,920.96 2-Wide DH 64x Marvin Clad Marvin AssemblyCD 1,369.58 2 60-Stnd Size RO 63 3/4" X 60 7/8" 2,739.76 3 Kitchen Casements Marvin Clad Marvin Assembly 1,414.04 1 RO 49" X 63 5/8" 1,414.04 2-Wide DH 60 x Marvin Clad Marvin Assembly 1,203.36 2 54-Stnd Size RO 59 3/4" X 52 7/8" 2,406.72 5 Upper Bath Awning Marvin Clad Ultimate Awning 48944 RO 29" X 23 5/8" 1 48944 OMS Ver. 0001.14.00 (Current) Processed on: 9/6/2013 4:29:57 PM, Page 1 of 5 OMS Ver. 0001.14.00 (Current) Product availability and pricing subject to change. LINE ITEM QUOTES Lammers Summit Remodel -Kathy Walden Quote Number: 54y73XZ The following is a schedule of the windows and doors for this project. For additional unit details, please see Line Item Quotes. Additional charges, tax or Terms and Conditions may apply. Detail pricing is per unit. Line #1 Mark Unit: Side Awnings Nt Price: 640.323 Ft. t Pce 920�`3 .96M6/M FS 40" X 28" RO 41" X 281/2" Bare Pine Interior Clad Ultimate Awning- Roto Operating Frame Size 40" X 28" Rough Opening 41" X 281/2" 552.00 Stone White Clad Sash Exterior IG -3/4 in - I Lite LOE 272 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Ogee Glazing Prole Standard Bottom Rail White Weather Strip Satin Nickel Folding Handle 51.52 Satin Nickel Multi - Point Lock Aluminum Screen Satin Taupe Surround Charcoal Fiberglass Mesh 6 9/16" Jambs ***Jamb Extension Ship Loose 36.80 Nailing Fin Line #2 2 Mark Unit: 2-Wide DH 64 x 60-Stnd Size Net Price: 1,369.8 q, M"VIIN` .P Stone Whit Cl d Ext ' Ext. Net Price: USD]FE 2 739.8 w �. a... ... ..... FS 62 3/4" X 60 3/8" RO 63 3/4" X 60 7/8' OMS Ver. 0001.14.00 (Current) e a enor Bare Pine Interior 2W1H- Rectangle Assembly Assembly Rough Opening 63 3/4" X 60 7/8" Unit: Al Clad Ultimate Double Hung CN 2626 Rough Opening 32 3/8" X 60 7/8" Top Sash Stone White Clad Sash Exterior IG -1 Ute LOE 272 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Ovolo Glazing Profile Bottom Sash Stone White Clad Sash Exterior IG -1 rite LOE 272 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Ovolo Glazing Profile Satin Nickel Sash Lock Beige lamb Hardware Aluminum Screen Stone White Surround Charcoal Fiberglass Mesh Unit: A2 Clad Ultimate Double Hung CN 2626 Rough Opening 32 3/8" X 60 7/8" Top Sash Stone White Clad Sash Exterior IG -1 Ute LOE 272 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Ovolo Glazing Profile Bottom Sash Processed on: 9/6/2013 4:29:57 PM 590.64 54.28 590.64 Page 2 of 5 OMS Ver. 0001.14.00 (Current) Product availability and pricing subject to change. Stone White Clad Sash Exterior IG -1 Lite LOE 272 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Ovolo Glazing Profile Satin Nickel Sash Lock Beige Jamb Hardware Aluminum Screen Stone White Surround Charcoal Fiberglass Mesh Factory Mull Charge 6 9/16" Jambs ""Jamb Extension Ship Loose Nailing Fin Lammers Summit Remodel -Kathy Walden Quote Number: 54Y73XZ 54.28 12.88 67.16 Line #3 Mark Unit: Kitchen Casements LL Net Price: 1 u I Eu rvet rrice III U�U Ip 1414 04 w4RUiRV NIL Stone White Clad Exterior swft.".dwu x.v®.ermm rit. Moat FS 48"X 631/8" RO 49" X 63 5/8" e nbenor 2W1H- Rectangle Assembly Assembly Rough Opening 49" X 63 5/8" Unit: Al Gad Ultimate Casement- left Hand CN 2464 Rough Opening 25" X 63 S/8" Frame Size 24" X 631/8" Stone White Gad Sash Exterior IG -3/4 in -1 Lite LoE 272 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Ogee Glazing Profile Stand Bottom Rail While ether Strip Satin Nickel ing Handle Satin Nickel Screen -PointLo/ Aluminum Screen Satin Taupe Surroun Charcoal Fiberglass Me Unit: A2 Clad Ultimate Casement Right I CN 2464 Rough Opening 25" X 5/8" Frame Size 24" X 63 I. Stone White ad Sash Exterior IG-3/4 -1lite LOE 2 w/Argon Stainl Perimeter Bar Standard Bottom Rail White Weather Strip Satin Nickel Folding Handle Satin Nickel Multi - Point Lock Aluminum Screen Satin Taupe Surround Charcoal Fiberglass Mesh Factory Mull Charge 6 9/16" Jambs ""lamb Extension Ship Loose Nailing Fin bare rme interior ea�.dwa 2W1H- Rectangle Assembly Assembly Rough Opening 59 3/4" X 52 7/8" 630.20 41.40 630.20 41.40 11.04 59.80 OMS Ver. 0001.14.00 (Current) Processed on: 9/6/2013 4:29:57 PM Page 3 of 5 ONIS Ver. 0001.14.00 (Current) ' Product availability and pricing subject to change. FS 583/4" X 52 3/8" RO 59 3/4" X 52 7/8" Unit: Al Clad Ultimate Double Hung ON 2422 Rough Opening 303/8" X 52 7/8" Top Sash Stone White Clad Sash Exterior IG -1 Lite WE 272 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Ovolo Glazing Profile Bottom Sash Stone White Clad Sash Exterior IG -1 Lite WE 272 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Ovolo Glazing Profile Satin Nickel Sash Lock Beige Jamb Hardware Aluminum Screen Stone White Surround Charcoal Fiberglass Mesh Unit: A2 Clad Ultimate Double Hung ON 2422 Rough Opening 303/8" X 52 7/8" Top Sash Stone White Clad Sash Exterior IG -1 Ute LOE 272 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Ovolo Glazing Profile Bottom Sash Stone White Clad Sash Exterior IG-1 Ute LoE 272 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Owlo Glazing Profile Satin Nickel Sash Lock Beige Jamb Hardware Aluminum Screen Stone White Surround Charcoal Fibergiass Mesh Factory Mull Charge 6 9/16" Jambs ***Jamb Extension Ship Loose Nailing Fin T>r_lefr Lammers Summit Remodel -Kathy Walden Quote Number: 54Y73X2 510.60 54.28 510.60 54.28 12.89 60.72 Line #5 1 Mark Unit: Upper Bath Awning v Net Price: EJtt Net Price USD 489.44 aRa ad uwe..... 4 FS 28" X 231/8" RO 29" X 235/8" OMS Ver. 0001.14.00 (Current) Bare Pine Interior Clad Ultimate Awning- Roto Operating ON 2824 Rough Opening 29" X 23 5/8" Frame Size 28" X 231/8" Stone White Clad Sash Exterior 410.32 IG -3/4 in -1 Lite LOE 272 W/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Ogee Glazing ProRte Standard Bottom Rail White Weather Strip Satin Nickel Folding Handle Satin Nickel Multi - Point lock 51.52 Aluminum Screen Satin Taupe Surround Chamoal Fiberglass Mesh 6 9/16" Jambs ***Jamb Extension Ship Loose 27.60 Nailing Fin Processed on: 9/6/2013 4:29:57 PM Page 4 of 5 OMS Ver. 0001.14.00 (Current) Product availability and pricing subject to change. Lammers Summit Remodel -Kathy Walden Quote Number: 54Y73XZ Project Subtotal Net Price: USD 6.000% Sales Tax: USD Project Total Net Price: USD 8,970.92 538.26 9,509.18 OMS Ver. 0001.14.00 (Current) Processed on: 9/6/2013 4:29:57 PM Page 5 of 5 Name: Lammers -Walden Address: Summit'Street Phone 1: Phone 2: Fax: Contact: Job Name: Specifications U.D. = 37 5/8" x 82"; R.O. = 38 1/2" x 82 1/2" Lead Time: Non -Stock - 20 Working Days (Call to verify) MOW Millwork, Inc. Quote Number: Sales Person: m '4 11 b Quote Item 1 of 1 Date: 9/6/2013 .. — 331fT(R0.). 6azi ,.. .37511110.10.) 1 Image is viewed from Exterior.! TO" x 6' 8" S2100 Smooth -Star - Flush Glazed Fiberglass Door w/Clear Glass - Left Hand inswing 2 3/4" Backset - Double Bore (21/8" Dia. Bon:) w/Deadbolt ANS9202 2-1/4" Full Lip (Adj. Strike Plate) Strike Prep Set of Standard - Brushed Nickel Hinges Primed Dura-Frame Frame w/FJ Pine Interior - 4 9116" Jamb w/No Exterior Trim w/(2)Brushed Nickel Adjustable Security Strike Plates (for Lockset and Deadbolt) Compression Weatherstrip Tru-Defense Composite Adj. - Mill Finish Sill Itam Total 1 499.26 1 7.85 $7.85 1 3.92 $3.92 1 -25.12 -$25.12 1 0.00 $0.00 1 0.00 $0.00 $486.91 Order Sub Total: $486.91 Tax: $29.16 Order Total: $615.06 Version #:1.15 Version Date: 8/6/2013 Staff Report December 6, 2013 Historic Review for 113 S. Johnson Street District: College Green Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Mark McCallum, is requesting approval for an alteration project at 113 S. Johnson Street, a contributing property in the College Green Historic District. The project consists of the removal of an existing window and installation of a new window in a new location in the same wall. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.13 Windows Staff Comments The historic Murphy house built in 1890 is one of the better local examples of the Queen Anne free classic variation seen on a relatively modest house. This is a large and commodious house for Iowa City, but is not a "mansion" or over scaled. The exterior is well decorated with details recalling classical architecture. Workmanship is quite fine. Per the Iowa Site Inventory Form, the building is individually eligible for the National Register under Criterion C and was considered a key structure for the district. The house is two stories with a large attic, a cut stone foundation, wood clapboard siding, and asphalt shingle roofing. There is a small one-story modem studio addition on the south side of the house. A previous Certificate of Appropriateness was issued in 2006 for repairs associated with tornado damage. In September of this year the Commission reviewed and approved an application for replacement windows - a total of four windows, at locations in the attic, main floor, and basement. In October, staff conducted a Minor Review and issued a COA for replacement of four more windows, all in the attic. The current project consists of the removal of an existing window on the west side of the house on the main floor, and installation of a new window in a new location in the same wall. The proposed new window is a Quaker Brighton' series clad wood double -hung. This is the same product that was previously approved for this house. Note that the room is not a sleeping room, and the proposed new window is not an egress window. For new windows, the guidelines recommend adding windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. The new location should be consistent with the window pattern of the historic house or of a house of this architectural style. In this case, the new window should align with the existing window directly above on the second floor. Where a window opening will be closed or relocated, the guidelines recommend that the change should not detract from the overall fenestration pattern, and the closed opening should have siding that matches the existing and is pieced in to avoid continuous vertical joints. In Staff's opinion, the proposed work meets the guidelines and is acceptable. If the window to be removed is original to the house, then staff recommends restoring and relocating this window to the new location, in lieu of purchasing a new window. Exterior trim should be re -used or fabricated to match existing window trim. Removing the existing window will require infill of the wall and new siding to match existing. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 113 S. Johnson Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: New window to align with existing window above; trim to match existing window trim; Siding at in -filled opening to match existing siding. J J � 3 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 1 /mil j_a_ ❑ 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 r me check primary contact person) Property Owner Name: A/ZK Atlr+, Email: 42CCd((t<.mm na,v(c (qh ft7Q % Ccfh Phone Number: (317) ` 30- N Address: (13 S . :hay4.. City: eWy JJ State: _[k Zip Code: 7Z Z 91) ❑Contractor/Consultant Name:/7Yc 041" Email: FRI C- G X14C (V,.p.peteis . C � Phone Number: ( ) 33 o. o g Address: 66 2-30*), JT City: N. �) 6e4 State: Zip Code: 5Z 31 / Proposed Project Information Address: 113 $ a JtJ91 A��` Use of Property: — StfetQapp6ttp(M 461-6 Date Constructed (if known): (703 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 (c use location) ❑ Brown Street Historic District LrJ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District Govemor-Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ke7 Contributing ❑ Noncontributing 0 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 too porch, deck, etc.) ❑/Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans Photographs —/ fd Product Information ❑ Site Plans C� Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or simitar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) J/ J ElN3 Building Elevations 2/photographs i3 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, decoraattiivv�j trim, baluster, etc.) 1 Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Reoair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Other: ❑ Product Information Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Project Description: 40 Proposed Project Details f cQ (e U7LCi -f� nc'f lies J&4'0J40 on GWP.t side of jeGVc:lA OAw Aw am-o yi Sack Materials to be Used: //•�\� Qt lLtJY.II C6) Exterior Appearance Changes: ne.Pisr �j��at2��J' o� [i/w'lc�J oDt �O.ti1 pG�t' a ppdadmin/histpres/app_ for _ historiereview.doc 12/11 --" J.rotation_ 319-330-1987 985 238TH STREET ERIC@LITEWWDOWS. NORTH LIBERTY,IA52317 cum t =§uasae: ,: Donald Jedlicka McCallB & B J�a, n!SQBTA0026S4— 1 1 y 1 Uumi I Part Number i Unit Extended 3rd floor A $383.23 $3, Series: Brighton \ Exact Size: 36 X 47 Rough Opening: 36 3/4 X 471/2 Color:Satin Cream,Paint Type:2604,1nterior Finish:Natural Finish, ----- Glass:LowE 7036/1-lear- Stnd,Argon Filled,Muntin:SDL-2" MBG-9/16, x+ Hardware:Gold,Ship Hardware:Wfth Product, Viewed From Exterior :3 Screen:Fuil Screen,5creen Color:Gold, Material:8etter View (TM),Ship:Screen With Product, install Acc:Hinged Nailing Fin,Depth:4 9/16" Jamb Depth, Unit:1-Casement Hinge Left Exact Size: 36 X 47,Meets Egress NFRC - U-Factor:0.32SHGC:0.21VF:0.37CR:59 2 Sstfoor 1 EA Quaker Unit $323.15 $323.15 i Series: Brighton Exact Slze: 32 X 66 Rough Opening: 32 3/4 X 66 1/2 ColonSatin Cream,Paint -1ype:2604,1nterior Finish: Natu ra I Finish, `-''••_ Glass:LOWE 7036/Clear- Stnd,Argon Filled, Hardware:Gold,Sash:Sweep Lock, Viewed From Exterior =' Jamb Liner:Beige,No Plough Screen:Full Screen,Material:Better View (TM),Ship:Screen With Product, Install Acc:Hinged Nailing Fin,Depth:4 9/16" Jamb Depth, Unit:1-Doubte Hung No Plough Enact Size: 32 X 66,NOT Egress. NFRC - U-Fac'cor:0.31SHGC:0.26VT:0.48CR:55 (t ZL GAS 14;, 7T Historic Presen ., +mmis-d(sn MEMORANDUM Date: December 6, 2013 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Cheryl Peterson, Preservation Consultant Re: Certificates of No Material Effect, Minor Reviews, and Intermediate 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 November report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 701 S. Seventh Avenue - grading, foundation repair, and driveway replacement Minor Review — Pre -approved items — Staff review 415 S. Summit Street - window replacement 308 Ronalds Street - window replacement Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review none MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2013 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Kate Corcoran, Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Kent Ackerson, David McMahon STAFF PRESENT: Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Matt Eldeen, Richard Finley, Wendy Scholz, Maeve Clarke RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:18 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Michaud said she was at a neighborhood council meeting the previous night. She said she was stating this as a private citizen, rather than as a Commission member. Michaud said she has been speaking with Stan Laverman and Marcia Bollinger about ameliorating or mitigating adjustments to the overlay code. Michaud said she did not know if it is possible, but because of the increased density adjacent to historic core neighborhoods, she feels there should be some kind of buffer zone or baffling of the increased noise levels. Michaud said she will be working on this and will initiate the effort to protect adjacent neighborhoods. She said her chief complaint right now is a vent fan from the restaurant that runs from 4 p.m. to 4 a.m. 365 nights a year. Michaud stated that if she can hear it, 23 other people closer to it can hear it. She said it is an intrusion, and it could be baffled, muffled, or possibly the RPMs could be changed. Michaud said this could also happen at Linn and Bloomington, because Jesse Allen is the developer there as well and could rent to a similar, late -night restaurant. Michaud said there is galloping development, and she will try to get some kind of adjustment to protect the quality of life, which is deteriorating for core neighborhoods. Swaim said that because this was not on the agenda, there cannot really be any Commission discussion. She asked Peterson if she could look into this more for the next meeting and put it on the agenda. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 704 Ronalds Street. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 14, 2013 Page 2 of S Peterson said this property is in the Brown Street Historic District and is on the corner of Ronalds and Dodge Streets. She said it is a turn of the century Queen Anne style house and is very original in its appearance. Peterson showed the side of the house facing Dodge Street. She then showed the back of the house, where the owners want to build an addition. Peterson said the one-story addition that is there now is not original to the house and would be demolished. She said the proposal is for a much larger kitchen/bathroom/porch addition on the back. Peterson said the slides include the same drawings that are in the packet. She said staff is recommending approval of this project. Peterson said the proposed materials are all perfect in terms of matching the house. She said that in every way it seems like a good plan, but staff has struggled with the overall massing and the roof design, and that is why there is an alternative design in the packet. Peterson showed the proposed design, with hip roofs. Peterson said the roof in this design is too low compared to the rest of the house. She said that the drawing of the proposed addition showing the east side does not include the full height of the roof on this house. She said the existing overall massing is vertical. Peterson showed the alternative design. She said it would have the same materials, but the porch on the back would match the porch on the front, and the core area of the addition would be taller and have a parapet and a flat roof. Peterson said the reason staff showed the two designs was to try to come up with an alternative to the low hip roof over the proposed addition. She said there may be other solutions, but the main idea is that it needs to have the height that matches the steep, vertical massing of the original house. Scholz, one of the owners of the house, said they love the house; and although it is not a large house, it has gracious spaces inside and the character of an old house. She said that the kitchen does not function for modern-day living, and the bathroom upstairs is also crammed into a small space. Scholz said they would like a nice entryway with some closets, and these things are the motivation for building the addition. She said it is necessary to make the house livable for anyone who would want to live there. Scholz said that Peterson has been very helpful in reviewing the design. She agreed that the proposed design looks too low and long. Scholz said they like the way Peterson has differentiated the roof of the interior portion from the roof of the porch. Scholz said they talked to their designer, who had some concerns about having a flat roof. She said she is convinced that they can come to some sort of resolution. Scholz said she does like that the roof height is differentiated. She said they are committed to making this historically appropriate, as well as aesthetically pleasing and also practical for everyday use. Peterson said staffs recommendation is to approve this, with final design review by chair and staff. She said she is comfortable that they will come to a good, final solution. Swaim asked about a parapet roof. Peterson said it would be a vertical extension of the wall, and then behind that, a little bit lower, would be the roof. Michaud said it appears to be a shed HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 14, 2013 Page 3 of 8 roof, with a gentle slope. She said that one could put an ice dam on it. Michaud said it would not be usable; one could not walk out onto it, because there is no door or window up there. Peterson said this house is technically only one and one-half story. She said there is no wall there to put a door out to the roof. Michaud asked if it would make sense to put a small gable there, a little doorway to utilize that space, or if one should not walk on that kind of roof. Peterson responded that it would be more construction. Michaud said it could increase the usability. Peterson stated that it would not have to be done right away. Scholz said that it would change the project radically. She said it would also change the existing structure quite radically. She said that in order to put a gable on, one would have to really tear into the original house. Peterson said they talked about how the hip roof of the proposed design still ends up with a flat portion. Peterson said the alternative design has more area of flat roof, but it can be designed to slope to drains. Baldridge asked about the extension of the addition beyond the original house on the east, although it is indented on the west side. He said that at one point there was a house on Summit Street where the owner wanted to extend it, and the Commission required her to have that extension indented by eight inches. Baldridge said that was in the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines. Peterson responded that when she was reviewing this, she was concerned that the proposed design overlapped and kind of swallowed up that northeast corner of the house. She said the alternative design keeps the existing vertical expression of that corner, without overlapping the corner. The existing vertical trim board would be preserved. Peterson said the addition does bump out in the wrong direction, and ideally it would be narrower than the house instead of wider than the house. Peterson showed the side of the house that faces the driveway, saying it is not the Dodge Street side. This is the side where the addition would extend beyond the original house. She said the taller cube -shape of the alternative design has a more acceptable massing, compared to the proposed design, and this cube is clearly differentiated from the original house, which is the intent of the guidelines. Baldridge said he was curious because of what the Commission went through with the Summit Street house. He said he recalled being told that it had to be indented rather than extended. Peterson said that indented is one of the good options, but it is not required. Michaud said that as long as it is offset and not contiguous, that would be acceptable. Peterson said that preserving the existing east gable end is something the Commission would want to do. She showed the proposed design where one can see how the new roof would overlap the corner of the house. Peterson said she was concerned about this. Peterson said that it would be very difficult to fit the proposed functions into anything smaller. She said it is a house with an accumulation of spaces and shapes. Michaud asked Peterson if she felt there was a false sense of history created by that parapet. She said that it looks kind of like a storefront. Michaud asked if one could just do a shed roof. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 14, 2013 Page 4 of 8 Peterson said that could probably be done. She showed one view and said that if one had a shed roof instead of the horizontal line of the top of the parapet, one would see something sloping. Swaim said it would be sloping to the sides of the house. Peterson showed how she felt it would be sloped if one did a shed roof. Scholz said that it is probably one of the details that they can continue to work out. She said that the shaping of that parapet wall and how defined it is and the materials can be worked out to keep this from looking like a commercial storefront. Michaud agreed that it could be worked out. Peterson said she recommends the use of cedar lap siding as proposed. She said it will tie in with the existing materials, and the trim boards would be identical, so that it will all match the existing house. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 704 Ronalds Street, as presented in the application, with the following condition: provide final design, including roof design, for review and approval by chair and staff. Durham seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (McMahon absent). 520 North Gilbert Street Peterson said that this house may be as old as 1865 and is in the Northside Historic District. She said that repair is in progress, and the porch was lost almost a year ago. Peterson said that one can see where it was by the area that is not painted. Eldeen, one of the owners, said that the porch was vandalized and then fell off the house, when it was damaged beyond all repair. He said he tried to save it, but he could not salvage it. Peterson showed a photograph from the packet, saying that it was a beautiful, very old porch. She said that as unfortunate as it is that the porch is gone, the building still maintains its architectural significance. Peterson said that one can see that it is the work of a master mason. She said that one can see the symmetry and proportion. Peterson said that the window crowns are a simple brick ornament over the windows and over the door. She said one can also see the chimneys are still intact. Peterson said staff recommends that the proposal that the owners finish the repairs be accepted. Eldeen said he did not know how the porch came to be vandalized. Michaud asked him if he did not want to replace it, because this could just happen again. Eldeen replied that he thinks it obscures. He said he likes the way that the house looks now. Eldeen referred to a photograph, saying one can see how he repaired the brickwork that was originally above the door and was removed when the porch roof was added at a later date. He said that he has returned it to what the original home was. Eldeen said he salvaged as much of the old wood as he could, but all the ornate design on the porch was smashed. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 14, 2013 Page 5 of 8 MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 520 North Gilbert Street as presented in the application. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (McMahon absent). 1025 East Burlington Street Peterson said this is the last house inside the boundary of the College Hill Conservation District. She said it is on the south side of Burlington Street. Peterson said this is a re -roof project. She said the chimney the owners want to remove is in the back; it's not the front one. Peterson said staff feels that is acceptable. Peterson said the applicant has proposed different solutions through the years and wants to do something now. She said that she and Bob Miklo have been working with the applicant, and the applicant's preference is to use asphalt shingles, which was recommended by staff. Peterson said the owner has made an effort to take care of this roof, as recommended to him by the Commission five years ago. Peterson said that at this point it seems reasonable to replace the roof. She said the owner had proposed a low -ribbed material that is not accepted by the guidelines. Peterson said the owner has therefore decided to use the standing seam or the shingles, most likely the shingles. Peterson said she would like to see this approved either way, so that he has that option. She stated that the current roof will come off, and there will be new sheathing. Peterson said that the way the building permits work, if an owner has to remove any of the sheathing, then a building permit is required, which triggers Commission review. She said that if this owner was not going to remove any of the sheathing or demolish the chimney, the way the rules are now, he would not need a building permit and would therefore not need historic review. Peterson said she and Miklo and Swaim have talked about situations like this and discussed whether the Commission should be involved when any replacement of a metal roof is done in one of these districts. Swaim commented that public perception may be that a building permit is not needed for replacing a roof, and the likelihood of having to replace the sheathing is great. Peterson showed a picture of the house next door, which uses the low -ribbed material. She said those are very close together, so it is a lot different than what we're used to with the old, metal roofs. Durham asked if it is arguable that that could be acceptable then. Swaim said she sees it as something that does not resemble a standing seam metal roof. She said the scale is way off. Swaim said she could see it on a farm building. Swaim said there are one or two of this style on College Street as well, and it is quite strikingly inappropriate in appearance. She said one really sees the low ribs between the higher ones and recommended Commission members look at these houses if they have an opportunity. Peterson said the owner has pulled back from the proposal for the low -ribbed product. She said he plans to do the standing seam or the asphalt shingles. Swaim said it is important, when HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 14, 2013 Page 6 of 8 there are new materials like this, to have some extra time to consider them before an application comes to the Commission. MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1025 East Burlington Street, as presented in the application, with the following conditions: confirm product selection for new standing seam metal roofing, or shingle roofing, for review and approval by chair and staff; any repair of soffits and trim must be with wood or approved wood substitutes. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (McMahon absent). 500 Clark Street Peterson said this house, in the Clark Street Conservation District, backs up to the playground area at Longfellow School. She said there is a new porch that the Commission approved a year ago. Peterson said this proposal is for a one story addition with a basement, a screened porch, and a deck; at the rear of the building. Peterson said this would use the same details as the front porch, so it would really pull things together. She said it is a simple house, without ornamental features, so this will tie it together. Peterson said staff did not find anything objectionable. She showed drawings of the proposed project, with the deck to the east and the screened porch to the south. Peterson showed the view from the north, with the new addition present. She said the siding is not drawn, but she believes everything would line up. Peterson showed the view from the east and the view from the other side on the west. She said the front of the house is on the west side, and the only visible portion of the addition would be the screened porch which would be considerably set back; the porch will be on the southeast corner of the house. The owner of the house said she was available to answer any questions. Peterson said the proposed materials are compatible with the existing materials. Swaim asked to see the east elevation as it appears now. Peterson said this is where the addition happens, and the existing deck will be removed. Wagner said it is the garage that is visible on the left side of the house — the south side. Peterson said the garage is closer to the front of the house. Wagner said it is five or six feet in front of the house. MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 500 Clark Street, as presented in the application. Litton seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (McMahon absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Swaim said these are listed in the packet. Peterson said the application she wanted to point out is 404 East Jefferson, St. Paul's Lutheran Chapel. She said this is the first review of a property HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 14, 2013 Page 7 of 8 in the new Jefferson Street District. Peterson said the Church is proposing repair of all the gable coping. DISCUSS ANNUAL HIS T ORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS Peterson said attendees should be at the Public Library at 5:00 on Thursday, November 21 She said the program starts at 5:30. Swaim volunteered to give a welcome speech to the awards presentation. Peterson said that someone from Friends of Historic Preservation (Friends) would also help with the welcome. Peterson said the selection committee included Baldridge, Corcoran, and Christine DenBerg from Friends. Peterson said those three have agreed to be award presenters. She said that information is still being gathered from the winners so that scripts can be prepared. Peterson said that she will be doing a PowerPoint presentation. Peterson showed photographs of the properties chosen by the selection committee for discussion by the Commission. MOTION: Wagner moved to accept the nominations for Historic Preservation awards as presented. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Litton. McMahon. and Michaud absent). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 10 2013: MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's October 10, 2013 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Litton. McMahon. and Michaud absent). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:17 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte O O c.i W T W V N Z N T N Z W E— a X X X X X x X X r 0 0 p P 0 c X X X X x X o o x x P LLJ x! x x x x x 'o x CD o o go w w w w I 0o x! x x 6 6 x x x 0 'o Y1 n X X X X X 0 X X X X wa X ! X X X X X X X X rl V) X x x o x x x w o o o . X j X X X X X p x x �O P w X ! X x X X p X X X O V' X ! X x I i X X X X X X X X I i X X X X e X X X , I X Q X N x x x i I x x x x o Cl) N X ! X x I 0 X x X X , P X ! X x I , X x X X r g (D v to It W co It 0 to In W W N N M M C�7 M M M N Lu W Q W Q Z W J Y O H Y C C a aZ H z C wz W Z LL Z LL O H u; a a Z z Z Wa' Q Z G 0 Z 2 Q W LU O m Y