Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-2014 Historic Preservation Commissiond IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, October 9, 2014 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30 p.m. A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Consent Agenda Certificates of Appropriateness 717 Grant Street (Longfellow H.D.) — window alteration E) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 427 Clark Street (Clark Street C.D.) — front porch addition 2. 604 Grant Street (Longfellow H.D.) —garage construction 3. 420 N. Dodge Street (Goosetown/Horace Mann C.D.) — chimney demolition 4. 718 E. Davenport Street (Goosetown/Horace Mann C.D.) — garage demolition F) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff G) Discussion of Annual Awards Program H) Consideration of Minutes for September 11, 2014 — HPC Meeting I) Adjournment Staff Report October 9, 2014 Historic Review for 717 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Danielle Marie Eivins and Jesus Loria Quijano, are requesting approval for an alteration project at 717 Grant Street, a Contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of the replacement and enlargement of existing windows in the attic level. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelfnesfat Alterations 4.13 Windows Staff Comments This house 2 and'/z story single-family dwelling was built between 1910 and 1920. The house has a gable roof, enclosed porch, and wide modern replacement siding. Although the application of the siding has covered the original details, the overall form appears to be that of a simplified Craftsman style house. The applicant is proposing to replace the double hung widows located in the attic on both the front and back sides of the house. The new windows openings would be slightly wider and located a few inches higher in the wall. The new widows would have the outward appearance a pair of double -hung windows, when compared to the existing single double -hung window. The trim would match the existing. The proposed windows are wood with an exterior metal cladding. The guidelines recommend: 1. locating new attic openings in a manner that is compatible with the historic window pattern, 2. that if a window is to be relocated, it should not detract from the overall fenestration appearance and 3. the use of metal -clad, solid wood windows is acceptable. In Staffs opinion, the application as submitted complies with the guidelines. Although the proposed replacement windows are slightly larger and located slightly higher in the gable, the size and position of the windows is compatible with historic window pattern. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 717 Grant Street as presented in the application. 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 Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/l-]Handbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: Q / 15'l h! ❑ 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 office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Fuse week rummy eoftet ram) 1 Ci ❑ Property Owner Name: VAN�e✓ura /ViAAG GQiAS Y J696 L-00MA do's-kW0 Email: C_ Akj al lo✓ i 2t t; rT wlai I • Co wl Phone Number: (3\q) 3 S k I IA . Address: 1 t7 (Aw.sN Q-aey- City: IOWA, C-yr-1 State: iA Zip Code: ❑ Contractor/Consultant Name: uIAVZ, %nl CXJNCTVAJC-T-iOtJ Email: Phone Number: (;,lq) 2,46 OS 61 Address: 1 8 `Z' 4 �3 City: l oWA GtJt state: (A Zip Code: s Proposed Project Information Address: -1I 1 rq9-60r `Jf l I0utA- G+i-t^(j l 52d.K UseofProperty: Date Constructed (if known): Historic Deslgnatioa (Maps are tented ur dbe nidaric Przarxvation Handbook) ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location) ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation Distrct ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Goosetown / Horace Mann. Conservation District ❑ Nordiside Historic District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District ❑ SmrLmit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Within the district, this Property is classified as: WContributing 0 Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans C9 Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the roject is a minor alteration, photo graphs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) pf,.&1N tN inS A9iDLF(&,Au 1t�f=,-Rdtil Za Sr- (3vWd1LPp (Lt&2 , CY Building Elevations ad Photographs B? Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Other: ❑ Product Information Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: S$JLA ",VIAC,N of UlWOOW1 ti -tAo f3go " i r2,Ac, of �AoME-iAcQ-c lS A 4xN6(C mM'mVJ cA I,oC66 ^j - IE500i G)6G7iMC5 WINNOW i A-QZ tN ?Ai> AMW - WMd V-I" & CUQ p MOVS Materials to be Used: w dot7 WtWooWf To 56 w5T-x�uL-EV WP-E 960b- V'Jf EXT-Gf rt/l_ />Wtunerijv� U,84h'%06. -ra-I6 r L,&ri ;UA6e mu, w b s1APiiJiL� obi A6.& 4h1JD (Nil.t 6� S\�^tL� Ca'litEv �SroftalE �IUUSa✓• Exterior Appearance Changes: TRC N;W WtIJDOWi W11,4, 13C- C31roExE-VL, -s,+/JrJ puoylgEn t, pvlINLr=kS. bispres/app_Por_Eustorimvim.'wc &4/14 Pella Prollne typical product details Proposed new window - aluminum dad wood window - 1 trim sizes and color to match existing - Product : Pella Praline Dashed line Indicates existing window to be replaced 2 L_ rr- -1i rr ii East Elevation (Front) Danielle M. Eivins & Jesus Loria Residence 717 Grant Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Attl" � 18' t6) Level 2 ——tg�-O� Top of Foundatidn Attic/ Iw-6" �1 Level & eveli & a - �,,, West Danielle M. Eivins & Jesus Loria Residence Z 717 Grant Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Staff Report October 9, 2014 Historic Review for 427 Clark Street District: Clark Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Erica Dammam, is requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 427 Clark Street, a Contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District. The project consists of constructing a front porch addition. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.10 Porches 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion. of Building Footprint — New Porches Staff Comments This two story frame house is an "I" house plan with a one story transverse addition at the rear. It possesses a symmetrical three bay facade and a brick foundation. It is an example of late 19th century dwellings that dot the Clark Street landscape. The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows the house had a full width front porch. It is unknown when the porch was removed. The applicant is proposing to construct a new front porch across the full width of the house. The proposed porch will be constructed of cedar over a treated lumber frame set upon concrete footings. It will have an asphalt roof and lattice or vertical type skirting. Deck boards are proposed for flooring. The balustrade will consist of square spindles. The application includes a concept sketch. The design will be similar to the porch that was recently added to 425 Clark Street, the neighboring property to the north (photos included). The roof design differs from the porch at 425 Clark Street, in that it would have open rafters rather than finished roof ends and ceiling (see "OPEN" label on sketch). The applicant indicates that this is to allow more head room and a more open feeling. The underside of the roof will have a headboard finish similar to a traditional porch ceiling. The finished porch will be painted to complement the house. The guidelines recommend: 1. constructing new porches that are consistent with the historic building or similar to porches of the same architectural style, 2. constructing new porches that are more than 18 inches above grade using traditional porch construction with wood joists and wood flooring and 3. adding skirting to fill the space between the porch floor and grade. The skirting should be constructed between porch piers. In conservation districts the guidelines provide for consideration of pretreated porch decking provided gaps between floorboards do not exceed 1/8 inch. The applicant is requesting approval of this exception rather than using fir tongue and groove flooring. In staff's opinion, the proposed porch complies with the guidelines. Although the open rafters and the lack of a finished ceiling are not typical or historic porches, the components Boa ustrade, skirting and posts), scale and placement of the proposed porch, reflect a simplified version of traditional front porches found on similar houses. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 427 Clark Street as presented in the application including an exception to all the use of deck flooring, subject to final plan details being approved by Chair and staff. 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 Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.iogov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate ofNo 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 office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information Property Owner Name: �(Please check primary contact person} I I e 1 C A b m M A AJ Email: N Q Ii' �.GUftne Number: (?Jq & qO O / 00 Address: 4 � 1t 3 + �' Cf City: l o w ct C w / State: % d� Zip Code: 5� 2 t/t� ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: 1 t/lj6 i Email: Phone Number: ( } Address: City: State: Zip Code: � % ! Proposed Project Information 'f Address: 2-T I-L 1,- X% � Use of Property: el(( en 7 J Date Constructed (if known): _ q� Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Goosetown / Horace Mann Conservation District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Within the district, this Property is classified as: ❑ Contributing 0 Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) M Building Elevations l' Floor Plans i3 Photographs GY Product Information Ili Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replaoement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: Exterior Appearance Changes: PCrCA ac/'D5's //917t of how 1upms/app_far hisodcmview.doc 614/14 9' p6c4e- fit• Nn` c LAW. tT '% �hr��. -.ter-' �'r!•°` .. _. - ,��-. _ _ rt -Ir v� � : .:� :�-J� , �. .• � • t _ jay i ' .•�Ya r'r� 'WU +.tk e .- F - rF`�> Staff Report October 9, 2014 Historic Review for 604 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Heidi Anderson, is requesting approval for a proposed construction project at 604 Grant Street, a Contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of constructing a detached two -car garage with a second floor loft. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.12 Site and Landscaping 6.0 Guidelines for New Construction 6.2 New Outbuildings Staff Comments This two story frame house with gable roof is a simple example of the Colonial Revival style popular in the early 1900s. The house is thought to have been built between 1925 and 1930. Windows are six over six double hung. The house has a brick veneer foundation, clapboard siding and asphalt shingles. The three bay fa4ade originally featured an offset, entrance porch with columns and a pediment. In 2009 the Commission approved the replacement of the entry porch with a fall width front porch. A porte-cochere is located on the south side of the house. The applicant is proposing to build a two car 24' by 36' garage with an upper level loft space. The garage is proposed to be built to the north side of the house and set back so that its front will be line with the rear wall of the house approximately 55' back from the front property line. The garage will be built on a concrete foundation. Because of the slope of the lot, three to four feet of the foundation wall will be exposed on the south and west sides of the garage. The applicant indicates that the foundation will be smooth finished concrete. The pitch of the roof and the details of the garage will be similar to those on the house. The garage will be dad in fiber cement board or wood lap siding. The roof will have asphalt shingles. The windows w ll be metal clad wood with divided lights to match those on the house. The window and door openings will be trimmed to match the trim on the house. The overhead garage doors will be carriage style doors. The pedestran door on the side of garage will be a half-light paneled fiberglass door. The drive will be a 10' wide at the street side of the property and widen to 24' at the garage entrance. The Site and Innd taping guidelines (4,12) recommend that driveways be one lane (8 to 10' wide) but can be widened at the back of the lot to provide access to multi -stall garages. The guidelines for new outbuildings (6.2) recommend: 1. placing new garages to the rear of the house, 2. garages should be subordinate in size and ornamentation to the house, 3. garages should reflect the style of the house, 4. garage doors should be smooth or simple panel doors or carriage style doors, and 5. installing two garage doors, double car garage doors are discouraged. In staff's opinion, the application generally meets the guidelines, but there are a few aspects that need clarification. The garage will be located near the rear of the lot, it will be subordinate in size and ornamentation to the house, it will reflect the style of the house and appropriate carriage style garage doors will be used. The Site and Landscaping guidelines recommend a one -lane drive that may widen in front of the garage doors. Although the applicant has agreed to comply with this guideline, a dimensioned site plan is necessary to verify the location and amount of paving proposed. The applicant will also be required to obtain a curb cut permit from the City Engineer for the new driveway. The site plan should show the relationship of the proposed driveway to the existing street tree and a street light that are in the vicinity of the proposed drive. Staff suggests that the existing curb cut and driveway located on the south side of the property be removed. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 604 Grant Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: 1. a site plan showing the location of the proposed curb cut and drive and product information for the pedestrian door to be submitted and approved by the Commission Chair and staff, and 2. the current curb cut and driveway being removed. 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 Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.orgWhandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ;9 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 UPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information 1 prim ary mary cantwt person) Property Owner Name: I I Ella I C3C k 50A/ #4 5 go „a is /�e id/i anderso//te�n m__ Phnne Nmnber. (3) 1) 53D - 76 37 Address: tP 64 (JKltN% S% �.�- City: low/9 CI LY State: / t ZipCode: S Spa Contractor / Consultant Name: SUSA N Y0141V6— / l , Q (, ©1S t.(. S %() tvt PoMt3 Email: 5tt5by0ttny 6 grnA1 / , Com Phone Number: (317) 3Z5- 31 b5 .Address: 82q I,,3yR q R4 hr) / City: ©VV C I `l State: `74 Zip Code: S�ZZ7 5 Proposed Pro4eet Information Address: 6 o /.r, v r- Sfi [� r� Use of Property: �/%! +al%% Date Constructed (if known): ' -131 Historic Designation (Major are loceW in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District i� Longfellow Historic District ❑ Goosetown / Horace Mann Conservation District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Within the district, this Property is classified as: KContributing 13 Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as aroom, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information XConstruction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ FloorPlans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Reoair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Prnirrt ilrarrinHnn- Materials to be Used: zxmlor appearance Unanges: �anR%� ra bisroriarev;ew.mc 61mra 5 b i � I I tll 1 _ I •I I 1 p \ TH O' _4- GRANTSTREEf PI0a�0. _. .. 604 Grant Street +676 +678 +680 +680 I FRONT ELEVATION 3`137-Z 70 RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION u i N Z x < d N AWNING AWNING 24' x 24' 24' x 24' /20 FRAMINIS I C> y i OPEN UNDER STEPS 2x4 BRO. WALL — TOP OF WINDOWS R.O. SHOWN AT 7' II 1/2' (SEE DETAIL) 18' FLOOR TRUSSES UP 18R ■F" EI M N Z x z < a TEMPERED t GLAZINq REOLHRED O �z Q x Z � Lfl O 9'-0 x 8'-0' GAR. DR. 9'-0' x 8'-O' GAR. DR. W/ (2) 9 1/2' LVL HDR. W/ (2) 9 1/2' LYL HDR, W/ SINGLE 2x4 TOP PLATE AND W/ SINGLE 2x4 TOP PLATE AND 3/4' TRIM BOTTOM PLATE 3/4' TRIM BOTTOM PLATE Pit 24' 0" I GARAGE LEVEL 3 V37-2, (�/I N I 24' 0" 10"4' 4'--�+-- 9' 10' 32' x 52" DBL-HUNG I' 3 I/2 211 8 I/T" FLR. LINE---; ' V V; N N: SLOPE CLC, FLAT CM TOP OF WINDON6 R.J. 9NOWN AT 6'-10" SLOPE CLO. 32' x 52' DBL-HUNG • 10 �. 4.�, 24' 0" .,UPPER LEVEL 10" 0 to ro 3 H37- z co I u 'STEP DOWNMAINTAINAMFOOTING AS REOVIRED INIMUM 42- BELOW GRADE 24' 0" `TOW ELEV. - +7'-4' TOW ELEV, - +4'-0' 1 1 I I 16'K6' FOOTING: REINFORCED W/ (2) •4 REBARS 9'x46' CONC. WALL ON I6'x6' FOOTING REINFORCED )04 REBAM - HATCHED AREA TO BE S' BELOW TOP OF FDN. TOW ELEV. - •4'-0' TOW ELEV. - a L 9' 3 24° 0- n O FOUNDATION PLAN 3 y31?-Z (1V rm RIDGE VENT ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES 24" O.C. 15/32' ROOF SHEATHING •15 LB. ROOFING FELT 12 ROOF SHINGLES 3. _ —9 3 12 g 4 r 12 T cv e 24' 0- 314- N% R38 INSULATION �$ IB" FLOOR TRUSS TYPE X GYPSUM (2) 0 V2' LVL: HDR.— ITUDS 16' O.C. TOP OF WINDOW R.O. f ISHEATHING R BARRIER pry IOD LAP SIDMG M 90 G7 C 6'x48" COMC. WALL HOPJZONTALLY I j A�VERTICALLY 4' CONC. FLR. WATER TOW ELEV. - -4'-0' TOE F ELEV. - 0'-0" SECTION THROUGH GARAGE FOAM INSULATION HOT —ROOF METHOD 12 r12�lKICKER METAL SOFFIT SYSTEM STUDS W O.C. V' GRADE 7OF ELEV. - *3'-4' 3/4" CLEAN ROCK FILL 4' DRAM TILE 3 t/37-2, 60 II J 1/ L 3/ IS" IS' FLOOR TRUSS RIDGE VENT ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES 24' O.C. IS/32' ROOF SHEATHING *IS LB. ROOFING FELT ROOF SHINGLES FOAM INSULATION HOT -ROOF METHOD = 12' 8 1/2" --- ........................................ :............. G.C. 8' 3 1/8' G IIR 710*RUN 16' MING W/ u 711 w 6 15/16' -. W/ 10' RUN ADJUST FOR 4' 4 5/8" SITE CONDITIONS 1 TOW ELEV. - +4'-d" I O .In _ELEV. - 0'-0' SECTION THROUGH STAIRS 3Y37-Z 1 i 0 2x4 FRAMING ............ ......_...............,., .-2x6 FRAMING 8' 4" 8. 10" 7R a 6 15/16" W/ 10' RUN 4' 0 5/8' �35~ ADJUST FOR SITE CONDITIONS SECTION THROUGH STAIRS �� u 7` 3 ig Wi�urc Cajr42c ceAcL4i&n Staff Report October 9, 2014 Historic Review for 420 N. Dodge Street District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Cathy Busch, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition project at 420 N. Dodge Street, a Contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists of demolition of the existing chimney. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa CityHistoncFreservation GuidehnesforAlterations 4.2 Chimneys Staff Comments This one and a half story vernacular house shows the influence of the Queen Anne style in its asyn•.metrical massing and cut -away side bay. It likely was constructed in the late 1890s or at the turn -of -the -century. The house has a stone foundation. Replacement siding, which appears to be aluminum, covers the original lap siding. The front porch has been partially enclosed. Even with these changes the house retains the appearance of a mid -sized Queen Ann style house common in parts of the Northside and Goosetown Neighborhoods. The chimney is located to eastside (backside) of the pyramid shaped roof. The applicant is proposing to remove the damaged chimney to just below the roof line and patch the roof with shingles that match the existing. The chimney is no longer used to vent the furnace and the applicant plans to have a direct vent water heater installed so that the chimney will no longer be needed for ventilation purposes. The guidelines state that fireplace chimneys are often defining architectural features of historic houses and chimneys may have decorative brickwork and often are a distinguishing feature of the roof profile. The guidelines recommend repairing and capping unused chimneys in a manner that prevents vermin from entering. The guidelines disallow removing prominent chimneys that are important to the historic character of a building. In Staffs opinion this chimney is not a defining architectural feature, such as a fireplace chimney, and it does not contain decorative brick that the guidelines indicate should be required to be preserved. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 420 N. Dodge Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: 1. The chimney including the metal pipe being removed to the roof line (if the metal pipe were to be retained as a functioning chimney staff would not recommend approval of removal of the brick). 2. The roof being repaired with shingles that match the existing. 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 Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/BPhandbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: 1 1 ❑ Certificate of No material Effect 0 CertificateofAppropriateness ❑ 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 IiPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the orrice of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. ❑ Property Owner Name: Email: --82 c-h,4- , ieant Womation tom) Phone Number: (3j4) -,5*4:5 - Z`7/91 Address: a�r�� XLe-A A) City: ok'it° 7--o State: Zip Code:45;;22� ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: Email: Address City: Address: ?a Use of Property: Phone Number: ( State: Proposed Project Information - Sl-iQrhAi Date Constructed (iflWown): Hi8teric (Map are ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. Handbook) OR rA This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Within the district, this Property is classified as: td Contributing ❑ Noncontributing Zip Code: ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Hill Conservation District b❑r Dearborn Street Conservation. District ,a, Goosetown / Horace Mann Conservation District ❑ Govemor-Lucas Street Conservation District 11 Nonlvstoric 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 f000rint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Productlnformation ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of aprimary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of abuilding, such as porch, chimney, decorative him, baluster, etc.) Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Detalk Project Description: a !J :. 4 � set, 44I a J I a .4Z 9'W M. - q d 'i.' Materials to be Used: I'll Jill lilliqlliq 11,111 Jill N Y I Jill •,VW7 »2t 1aslaWaPPsw_luRmiceoviow.doc 6/4/14 4to � I� c A- PZLo h r x:9 C-4 elf (b�e -(� re I- F LQ la c�4 � PA-O6r" cvvc Ole �TW�M alp a- led_ 64 JA- ILAI .Dow 4 t wk'_t � i �i Staff Report October 9, 2014 Historic Review for 718 E. Davenport Street District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Chudacek Partnership, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition project at 718 E. Davenport Street, a contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists of demolishing an existing garage. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 9.o Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features 7.2 Prevention of Demolition by Neglect Staff Carrunents This 2-story frame dwelling was built in ca. 1890 according to City Assessor's records. It is a large scale example of a vernacular house form (Front -Gable and Wing) common to Iowa City's Bohemian Goosetown neighborhood. In this case, the house actually has two wings with the right (east) wing extending from a point closer to the front of the building than the left (west) wing. A flat roofed porch extends across the front. The porch has square columns, a closed paneled balustrade, basket weave porch skirting, and indications that it was screened at an earlier point in time. The house is set on a brick foundation and has veneered brick walls with decorative fish -scale shingles in the gable peaks. The brick was likely produced by local brickwork and laid by the original owner, Joseph Cerny, who worked as a bricklayer and general contractor. The building retains its standing seam sheet metal roof. This large scale residence serves as a focal point along East Davenport Street. It is similar in design to another residence built by Cerny at 214 North Gilbert Street. Cerny bought this property in 1889 and city directories show him residing at this address in 1891. The property contains a small outbuilding located near the alley. Based on materials and construction techniques, this outbuilding was likely built at the same time as the house. It probably served as a small barn for a horse or small livestock, once a common feature in Goosetown. The barn is constructed of wood car siding with a thin batten applied over the vertical planks. It has a steeply pitched metal roof with a lean to extension to the south. An upper level door provides access to a small loft accessible from the alley. At some point the barn was converted to a garage with the installation of a modem overhead garage door. An Iowa Historic Site Inventory Form prepared by Marlys Svendsen in 1998 indicates that this property is individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The applicant is proposing to demolish the barn/garage. It would be replaced with a concrete parking pad. The guidelines state that a decision to approve the demolition of outbuildings will be made on a case -by -case basis. For these cases, the Commission will consider the condition, integrity and architectural significance of the outbuilding. The guidelines recommend retaining historic garages. When considering the integrity and architectural significance, it is likely that with the exception of the garage door and the cement floor and foundation, this barn, like its companion house, is very similar to how it appeared when it was built. The barn represents a form of building that was once common in Goosetown and is a historic record of the neighborhood. When considering the condition of the barn, in staffs opinion it does show signs of deferred maintenance. The paint is peeling and portions of some of the exterior boards are rotting. The metal roof is in fair condition, showing few signs of rust, but it is in need of recoating. The plywood roof on the small lean to portion is rotted and in need of replacement. All of these conditions can be addressed with routine maintenance. The greatest expense to repairing the garage would be replacing the crumbling concrete floor and providing a new foundation or floating slab to allow the wooden elements to be raised a few inches above grade. Although this would go beyond the expense of routine maintenance, a new floating slab is not likely to cost much more than putting in a parkang pad. The cost of the overall repair of the building is likely to be considerably less than the cost of building a new similar sized garage. Retaining and repairing the garage would add value to the property and the neighborhood while preserving a historic record of Goosetown. Recommended Motion Move to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the garage at 718 E. Davenport Street due to its historic importance in the Goosetown Neighborhood. Arniieation 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 Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: w% vo.icgov.org,`HPhandbook For Staff Use.: Date submitted: 1q_ ❑ Certificate ofNo material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness 0 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 office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Gwrer/Applicant Informat on (Please check con test person) h ❑ Property Owner Name Email: 01AWIAI Phone Number. Address:: City:e V State:, -- Zip Code: �2Z lk 1AContractor �l nsultrt Nalee: 6t V } &4-m 4AC it 60iWoks. J# Email: Ra�}fit �� F+ `1�pt61, CQOyit PhoneNumber:4" — Qd Address: T, �� r� P 5zz City: ! Jj 5#ate: — �— Zi Code: 1/� ,� Proposed Pro'ect1rtformation Address: 7/if 1 f•-Z'=A. Y 4 Use of Property:Date Constructed (if known): Eistoric Designation (Maps are located in the Knoric Preservation Handbook) ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ Ctark Street Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Dmrbom Sheet Conservation District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ,X'1"P Goosetovm f Horace Mann Conservation District ❑ Norfl side Historic District ❑ Govenor-Lucas Street Conservation District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn. Historic District Within the district, this Property is classified as: Contributing ❑ Noncontributing 13 Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type, In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applicationswithout necessary materials may be micoted, ❑ Addition (Typically pritnets entailing an addition to the building footprint such use room; poach deck, e.c,) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Productlntormation ❑ she Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alteranoos, deck or porch replucement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs anddrawings to denrihe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information Construction of new building ❑ Build'urg Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Productlnformatlon ❑ Site Plans ,Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a. primary structure or outbuilding, or nay portion of a building, such w porch., chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or restaration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Productlnfortmition ❑ Other: Pleasecontact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Protect Deccrinlinn Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: tusPrcyepP (a r_hiswnercvierv.Aac 6/4/14 Y �' 7 ' �r ♦. v' �(s N/ illl S " I "A� �� k�. ! �-.L1 / ry�1 ,k �� 9��%• -.fir �t�`v 4�„' k kC, Sly . fir.- _.`t •5+�, _ 1 1 r - - . •= MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPT EMBER 11, 2014 EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Kate Corcoran, Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Litton called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 809 East Bloomington Street. Miklo said this property is in the recently established Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District and is on the south side of Bloomington Street in the Goosetown portion of the neighborhood. He showed a photograph of the house Miklo said the house was restored and renovated a number of years ago. He added that at one time it was covered in asbestos/slate type siding. Miklo said the current owner did a lot of work to bring the house back, in terms of restoring the siding, windows, and porch and also by adding some details, which although not necessarily original to the house, are in keeping with the spirit of the house. Miklo said the proposal is to build a two -car garage in the back yard with a studio space above it. He said there was a garage there previously that was removed prior to creation of the district. Miklo showed a photograph of the house, which is going through some repair work, to give an idea of the relationship of the house to the space where the garage would be. Miklo said the proposal shows generally a gambrei-style building with some details that normally would not be found on a gambrel -style building. He said Cheryl Peterson, the Commission's consulting architect, took the original drawing and has made some suggestions as to how it might be detailed to fit the character of the building but also try to accomplish the goals of the homeowner in terms of reflecting some of the spirit of the back of the house. Miklo referred to a couple of alternative designs. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 2 of 9 Miklo referred to the guidelines listed on page one of the staff report for this item. He said the first guideline is to locate new outbuildings or garages to the rear of the property, which is accomplished in this case. Miklo said the second guideline is to design the outbuilding to be clearly subordinate in size and ornamentation to the primary building, and this is clearly subordinate in size and generally conforms in terms of the details of the design. Miklo said the next guideline is to design the outbuilding to reflect the style of the primary building or historic outbuildings in the neighborhood. He said staff feels this generally meets that guideline. Miklo said that although gambrel -style roofs are not very common in Goosetown, they are seen on some houses and some newer outbuildings. He said it is not the sort of roof one would typically see on a barn or garage in Goosetown, but staff did find at least one historic example and therefore feels this generally meets that requirement. Miklo said the next guideline is to select a garage door that is either a plain panel or a carriage - style door. He said that staff has discussed this with the applicant, who would like the option of doing either. Miklo stated that the next guideline is to select windows that are relatively small and rectangular. He said that Peterson has made some suggestions for that but also notes in the report that, given the folk Victorian character of the house, perhaps some leeway with that guideline is in order. Miklo said that at this point, going through the guidelines, it was Peterson's finding that the proposal generally meets the guidelines and the requirements. Miklo said staff recommends approval subject to some of the details being worked out prior to the final issuance of a permit. He said the drawing seen in the application was not fully detailed, and those are the details that staff would recommend be completed, working with the applicant, the chair, and staff. Leigh, the owner of the house, said she has been a resident of the North Side Neighborhood for 36 years. She said that she intends to retire in the near future and hopes to spend much of her retirement in a studio pursuing interests she has not had time or space for before. Leigh said her neighbors have told her that there used to be a little barn in the back of this property. She said that structure was lost to a fire. It may have had a gambrel -roof style. Leigh said that ever since her neighbors told her about that, she has been dreaming about restoring the little barn and having a studio above it in a barn -like or carriage house -like structure. She said she hopes there can be agreement on style, because she finds no charm whatsoever in the change to the gambrel roof from the original one that she had. Leigh said the slope is more so so that it cuts in both to the garage space on the first floor, and the studio space up above. Leigh said the little detail in the first roofline is called a chine. She said she has pictures of nine other gambrel roofs within a two -block radius of her house that do not have chines. Leigh said she has asked for an address of something in her neighborhood or even in the community that has a roofline like this but has not yet received an address. She said a friend had told her this is the roofline of the house in The Amityville Horror, and she would rather not have that in her back yard. Leigh said there has been some discussion about the degree or ornamentation on this. She said she is certainly willing to make some concessions, but if she makes concessions to the point where the structure is no longer her dream, then she would need to back off of the project. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 3 of 9 Michaud asked about the chine. Leigh pointed out that it is the one on the top roofline. She referred to one of the photographs and said she would like to have a little steeper pitch on the bottom roofline and no chine. Leigh said she is amenable to different garage doors and whatever the window and service door recommendations are. Michaud asked if the upper windows are two options or the front and the back. Leigh responded that is just the side facing into the yard. Michaud asked about the palladian window. Leigh said that idea is no longer in play — that it was discarded long ago. Leigh said her lot is only 43 feet wide and 150 feet deep. She said that if one stands in the middle, from the edge of the deck to the edge of the porch of this structure, should it be built, there would be 44 feet. Leigh said if one stands in the yard, 22 feet over there are turned spindles. She said she would like to have turned spindles 22 feet in. this direction. Leigh said that 22 in one direction she has that window system, which she would like to see duplicated 22 feet in the other direction but on a larger scale. Leigh said that 22 feet in one direction she has some fish -scale shingles, and she would like to see them duplicated also. She said she wouid like the two buildings to relate to each other very much. Michaud asked if the shakes are the second choice. Leigh replied that they were never her choice. She said that shakes were never her choice but were put on the plan by an architect in some preliminary drawings. Miklo said this is not an important detail. He said Peterson just based this off drawings from an architectural book that showed barns. Miklc said the one concern Peterson had is that fish scales are not something that would typically be seen on a gambrel roof or a barn. Miklo said that Peterson was comfortable with everything else that Leigh has asked for. Leigh referred to the more symmetrical version and said that it is the one she likes. She said that Peterson drew it. Leigh said she was unsure of what to do with the lower story windows but thinks the ones proposed by Peterson are lovely, and she would be very happy with them. Leigh said she loves the combination of the upper story windows. Leigh said that in looking at the picture of the front of her house, she wants the porch to be very similar to that porch, with both the little galley rail above and the little railing below the roofline. She said she does not intend to have a handrail down below but would like the option to play with the porch post ideas. Leigh said she was hoping to find materials that are a little less maintenance than the wood on the front of her house. Miklo said this is a conservation district, so there is more !eeway in terms of material choices Ackerson said there are other houses that have fish scale siding on them. Miklo agreed. He said that it is not unheard of on a house, but on an outbuilding it would be pretty unusual. Miklo said it might be found on a more elaborate, Victorian carriage house, but it would be a rarity in Goosetown, where things tend to be simpler. He added that the issue with fish scales is the gambrel roof, the more agricultural roof, is where one would not see fish scales. Leigh referred to the spindle that is used both above and below the porch roof on the front of her house. She said that if she cannot find something similar in scale and design, then this example for the house is what she will be using. Michaud said this sounds like a great project. She asked if there were originally fish scales on the house. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 4 of 9 Leigh said she did not know. She said that so much has been taken off of the house to make the slate siding lay flat. Leigh said the ornamentation in the gable on the front was chiseled off, as was the drip cap all around the bottom of the house. She said she replaced all of that. Michaud said that this is a conservation district, and the owner has put a lot of spindles on the back of the house with those stairways. She said the whole house is up a notch now from the average house in that neighborhood. Michaud said that because a lot of ornate upgrades have been done on the primary house and this is in a conservation district, she thinks this looks like one of those ornate little cottages in an East Coast area. She said that if that is the way this is leaning, it doesn't seem too much of a jump to do the carriage house in this style. Michaud said that just because the main house is smaller, it is still going to be like a carriage house, even though it has a gambrel roof, because it is very detailed and finished. She said she does not have any problem with fish scales. Ackerson said he aarees. He said the flavor of the north side of the addition and the south side of the house are consistent, and it makes for a well conceived, well executed building. Leigh stated that she is equally concerned about the roofline. She said the roofline of her original design accommodates her garage needs and her studio needs, and she finds it much more appealing than the alternative. Leigh said it is a big concern for her. Wagner asked about the pitch. He said that one plan shows a five:twelve and asked about the other plan. Miklo said it is slightly less steep, although he did not think Peterson had labeled it. Agran said he is a little bit confused, because he is looking at the two drawings and can hardly see a pitch change at all. Leigh said the less of a pitch moves in two feet so that everything has to shift about two feet to the inside of the building, and then it encroaches on headroom, where she has the staircase placed. She said if she moves the staircase, then it is more toward the middle of the garage. Leigh said it puts the stairwell in the studio two feet further in to the studio. Agran said, to clarify, that the change of the roofline was not a major concern of Peterson's. Miklo replied that the roofline that Peterson drew was based more on historic proportions. He said the other, wider roofline would be seen commonly, for example, if one went to Menard's and bought a pre -packaged garage or storage shed. Miklo said that Peterson related to him that her biggest concern was not having too many siding materials and the mix and match. He said if the Commission is comfortable with this roofline, it is not too big of an issue. Agran said he thinks that since the loft is not going to store hay, and there are modern, reasonable concerns about having the second floor be useful, he thinks this is a pretty subtle change given the whole scope of the project He said it makes sense for the building to be useful and has no problem with the rocf.ine. Wagner added that it is an outbuilding at the back of the house. Leigh said this fagade will not be visible to the street. She said the lot is so narrow, and the building is very close to the back of her house. Clore asked if there is a question about the materials to be used. Regarding the use of the fish scales, Miklo said Peterson had some concerns about this agricultural -type building having fish scales on it and the fact that there were several siding materials on the same building. Miklo said that would not normally be seen, unless this was more of a Victorian design. Agran said that of all of the different things that are proposed, the fact that this is on the rear of the house and is not street -facing and the fact that an agricultural building probably wouldn't have had HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 5 of 9 all those windows and balustrade and balcony, to hold it specifically to this one standard while allowing all of those other things seems picky. He said that of course this is not an agricultural building. Agran said that doesn't mean that it shouldn't fit in, but everything about this and everything about the intent of the homeowner is that this project really fits in with what has been done to the house. He said that what has beer, done to the house generally in this neighborhood has been really nice, so he has no problem with the fish scales. Corcoran said the packet shows a black and white view of the house from the back. She asked if there are fish scales there on the back of the house. Miklo answered that it is staff's understanding that these fish scales were added when the building was repaired in the 1990s. He said the roofline had a roof return, and the original siding was all either removed or covered with asbestos. Miklo said that Leigh added this when it was remodeled and the patio/French doors were added. Leigh said she took off all of the asbestos siding. She showed the side where there had been so much water damage below the upper window. Leigh said it was the only siding on the entire house that is now not original to the house. She said it had to be replaced, and she had a great deal of difficulty finding materials to replace it with. Leigh said that at the time there was a cottage behind the QuikTrip at Burlington and Gilbert that had a similar design between the upper and lower story windows that gave her the solution to use fish scales on the back of the house. Leigh said she does not think anyone is more concerned about the heritage of this community than she is. She said she has very strong ties to the community, and both sets of her grandparents lived here. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a new outbuilding at 809 East Bloomington Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: 1) service door to be smooth finish fiberglass; garage door to be smooth finish fiberglass or steel; 2) windows to have permanently adhered muntirs; 3) all wood substitute materials to have smooth finish; and 4) provide final design for review and approval by chair and staff. The roofline may remain as proposed by the applicant, and use and placement of fish scales is to be worked out between the applicant and staff but with the note that the Commission is generally not opposed to the use of fish scales. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Swaim absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Miklo said there were a number of these items that were reported in a handout. He said he could answer any questions about these. DISCUSS UPDATING GUIDELINES TO INCLUDE HISTORIC REVIEW OF ROOFING PROJECTS: Miklo stated that the guidelines currently contain language regarding roofs and metal roofs. He said the guidelines encourage the preservation of historic, metal roofs, although they do allow their replacement with asphalt shingles where appropriate. Miklo said the Commission has approved several roofs where shingles have replaced metal. He said there have also been metal roofs replaced with metal or repaired. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 6 of 9 Miklo said one of the things staff has noticed lately is that roofs that were originally shing!es are now getting metal roofing but of a style that is not similar to the historic standing seam metal roofs. He said what was happening in the past, because metal was more expensive to repair, was that people were choosing to take it off. Miklo said that now there are these newer metal roofs that are basically designed for agricultural buildings and as siding. He said these have become very inexpensive to put on. Miklo said they do have more durability than a shingle roof, so staff has noticed a trend of houses that were originally built with shingles having metal roofs placed over them. Miklo said it is often not appropriate for the building. He showed an example from the College Hill Historic District. Miklo stated that the building code currently does not require a building permit for a new roof as long as one is not affecting the sub -roof — the sheathing under the roof. He said these are therefore going on perfectly legally, as they are not required to get permits, and they are being put over the shingles. Miklo said staffs concern is that these really are out of character with an historic metal roof. He showed a typical historic, metal roof, where the panels are about 16 inches wide, and they have standing seams. Miklo said there are some modern metal roofs that replicate this almost but not exactly and are less expensive than doing a traditional standing seam. He said the Commission has approved a few of those, and staff would probably have no objection in most cases to putting this sort of metal roof on, but agricultural type corrugated metal roofs are a concern. Miklo suggested the Commission recommend to the City Council that the building code be amended to require some review whenever a roof is being changed from one material to another. He said it would be similar to replacement windows, as for a newer house or outside of an historic district they don't require a permit but in an historic or conservation district they do require a permit through the building code. Miklo said staff suggests a similar amendment be made to the building code to allow the Commission or staff to review these types of situations with the idea of not allowing this to occur. Miklo said the proposal would be to require a permit for this in historic and/or conservation districts. He said, for example, putting on vinyl siding outside of a historic district does not require a permit, but it does in an historic district. Michaud said it seems reasonable to require a permit for this. She asked if color would be regu!ated, as many of the colors she has seen do not seem to fit. Agran said that there are some really ugly colors of asphalt roofs that one can choose also. He said the Historic Preservation Commission runs a dangerous line of determining what is in keeping with the historic nature and how much does the Commission allow people to make their own aesthetic decisions whether or not the Commission agrees with them. Miklo said one of the reasons the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission does not regu!ar color, as commissions in some cities do, is that one has to paint every so often so that if someone paints something a really bad color, it will probably be changed somewhere down the line. He said this material, however, is a little more permanent; these roofs probably will never be painted so that HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 7 of 9 one might be stuck with a really bad color. Mikio said the color is probably a minor consideration though, compared to the corrugated appearance. Wagner said it is also just the way these things are finished. He said that on the previous photograph, one can see that the ribs are open at the bottom, and even the covers are open. Wagner said that on a pole barn that would be fine. Agran asked if the question is actually that this is not necessarily about the choice of materials so much as some degree of oversight for a change of materials. Miklo agreed. Agran asked, if a person has a metal roof with holes and wants to put on a new roof on, a new metal roof can be put on without review but shingles would require review. Miklo said there have been several cases in which the Commission has approved going from metal to shingles. He said those were cases where someone was making some other changes to the roof or remove sheathing, so that a permit was required. Miklo said that is less of a concern than going from asphalt to newer style metal or going from a standing seam metal roof to a corrugated metal roof. Corcoran asked if the affect of a change like this to the building code would require someone wanting to go from asphalt to metal to come before the Commission to get the building permit. Miklo said that is a detail to be worked out. He said the person would have to apply to the building department for a permit, and then it would be sent to staff. Miklo said that, depending on how the ordinance is drafted, it might require them to come before the Commission or it might be something that could be approved administratively. Baker asked if this would say that any roof in an historic district would come under review whether they are switching materials or not or only if they are switching materials. Miklo said it would only be if they are switching materials. Sandell asked if metal roofs that resemble the old metal roofs are available. Miklo confirmed that they are available. Michaud asked if there are reasonably priced roofs that are available. Miklo replied that there are examples that are not true standing seam metal roofs that have a similar width of pattern. He said he will include some photographs of those when this is next discussed. Wagner said those new metal roofs will keep going on unless something is done. Miklo agreed and said it could have a significant effect on the character of the historic districts. Considering that these roofs last for decades, Michaud said she thinks it might be reasonable to say the roof should be a neutral color or an earth tone. Agran said this idea is fine, but it sounds very subjective. He asked if the Commission would be prohibiting certain roof materiais. Miklo said the guidelines would have to be amended. He said that in a conservation district, on a garage, this new metal roof might be perfectly acceptable. Miklo said staff would have to do a lot more work, but he just wanted to bring this to the Commission's attention to see if it is something the Commission felt should be addressed. Miklo said the building code is going to be amended early next year, so the Commission would have between now and then to get some language worked out and get it to the City Council. Sandell said this seems appropriate to him. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 8 of 9 MOTION: Male (Sandell?) moved that the Historic Preservation Commission ask staff to prepare a draft of the proposed changes to the building code for review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Swaim absent). Michaud said she recently talked to a neighbor/landlord who replaced every window on an adjacent property. Michaud said there were 50 or 60 casement windows with small panes involved. Michaud said the owner wanted to make them double pane glass and have exterior muntins, but he could not increase the efficiency of the five -unit building, because he was limited to restoring the windows. She said it ended up costing him significantly more for five units, perhaps $60,000 versus $30,000, and he got zero efficiency out of it. Michaud said that while the Commission is reviewing permits for something like this, which is basically a new material, she did not know how flexible the Secretary of the Interior Standards are about muntins, but she thinks it is a little onerous not to allow a more efficient window given the fact that we are facing energy problems in the near future. Miklo said he is not familiar with this project. Michaud said it was reviewed by Peterson and is at 603 College. Miklo said that replacement windows with divided lights are allowed. Michaud said that the owner could not put in double pane at all, even if the muntins were applied to the outside. Miklo said that is allowed, according to the guidelines. Michaud said there might have been some misunderstanding, but the owner ended up having some windows rebuilt. Miklo said this is probably something that should be talked about with Peterson after the meeting. He said that if the windows are deteriorated, the Commission does allow replacement windows. Miklo said they have to have divided lights, and double pane is pretty standard. Michaud asked Miklo to review a little bit to see what 603 College was like and if the windows were deteriorated. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 14, 2014: MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's August 14, 2014 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Swaim absent). COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: Corcoran asked about the Saint Mary's application. Wagner said he visited the site with other Commission members. He said they definitely do not need to be replaced and should be restored. Miklo said the application was denied, but the application was appealed to the City Council, and it will be on the City Council's October 8 agenda. Wagner said that Alicia Trimble of Friends of Historic Preservation has proposed doing a demonstration project at St. Mary's Rectory to show how to restore the sashes. This would give them a sense of hew affective repair can be and would save them the cost for the two windows. Wagner did not know if the applicant has yet to accept the offer of the demonstration. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m. L 0 47 U Z 2 H i W U) W d tU 2 O F- U) S r `W X X X X X X X X X X X p X p 1 Q X X X X I i m r x X X X X x X x m I I O O o l co 0 X X X X X X X x X Q 0 LU X 0 X X X I X X x x W x x x I x x x x x O q Lu NO X X X X X X i X X ri M C- r in X X X X X X X X X N 0 N N X X X i X X X r O O O W r 0 X I x X X x i X X r C X i X i X X X LU Q I X X r N r ` x x i X X X X W 00 x x W W x x W '0 W � 0 0 0 I N N n x i X i x X O X i I X X ; �a rn l 0) 0)m rn rn rn rn i rn WLu N N M I C7 C1 (7 f") M M C7 I M f+l M a Z uj Z'W Ya'� D F I Y I Q z iw p' w 0 IL f M p I= w ZLL a < CZ-9 a Z ^C g W Ir Y !I Y O U = 0 U ZQ a C9 Q xoo w Y