The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-13-2014 Historic Preservation CommissionIowa City Historic preservation Commission r Thursday C�),.�;� November 13, 2014V CO 5:30 p.m. P. V-111 c+ M, n; s �tiJ I"l Syr 4 ." tlrlli�P •� �` 21 rI �'LlR1III " �( hhNll � I ,{,• Emma Harvat Mall City Hall I W®amwos COVV o,i,i QO G r IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, November 13, 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) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 1131, 1137, 1205 & 1211 East Burlington Street (College Hill C.D.) — fence project 2. 1530 Sheridan Avenue (Dearborn Street C.D.) — door/window relocation & replacement 3. 1411 Sheridan Avenue (Longfellow H.D.) — basement window project E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff F) Discussion of Annual Awards Program G) Consideration of Minutes for October 9, 2014 H) Historic Preservation Information I) Adjournment Staff Report November 13, 2014 Historic Review for 1131, 1137,1205 & 1211 East Burlington Street District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: All structures are Contributing The applicant, Jim Hayes, is requesting approval for a proposed fence project at 1131, 1137, 1205 & 1211 East Burlington Street, all contributing properties in the College Hill Conservation District. Tre project consists of a metal and wood fence approximately 4ft in height. Integrated into this fence is a sculptural metal gate approximately 12ft in height. limestone piers are located on either side of the gate. Applicable Regulations and (Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.12 Site and Landscaping Staff Comments These properties located in Oakes First Addition were all built in and around 1900 and demonstrate a. modest Queen Anne style (1131 and 1137 E. Burlington) and a common vernacular style (1205 and 1211 E. Burlington). The properties are under one ownership Qim Hayes) and have a common setback and paint scheme presenting themselves as a cohesive design grouping. The applicant is proposing a 3.5 to 4ft fence consisting of metal painted posts and painted wood pickets that would be placed in the front yards of these properties approximately loft back from the sidewalk. Across the driveway at 1137 E. Burlington, a sculptural metal gate approximately 12ft in height is proposed. The gate has been designed by and will be fabricated by Shirley Wyrick, a local artist who specializes in metal sculpture. The gate is flanked by two limestone piers. The design of the gate reflects the artistry of Grant Wood and identifies these properties as the Grant Wood Art Colony. The guidelines recommend installing fences between the street and front fa4ade that are 4 feet or less in height and designing the fences to be similar to historic fence styles such as wood picket or wrought iron or metal fences. In Staff's opinion, the proposed fence portion of the project meets the guidelines for fences in historic and conservation districts both in terms of height and materials. What is unusual is the proposed gate portion of fence, but the design is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of conservation districts. These properties are contiguous (across an alley) with the historic Grant Wood house owned by Mr. Hayes at 1142 E. Court Street. These properties, are used for the purposes of promoting art and artists in the State of Iowa as a legacy to the influence of Grant Wood. The gate is a reflection of the influence of Grant Wood on the region and in the neighborhood. The fence and gate do not directly impact the structures and their historic features but will enhance the overall appearance of the street frontage. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1131, 1137, 1205 and 1211 East Burlington Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: • Any external lighting is limited to the gate and its component parts. • The location and design of light factures to be approved by staff and Comnussion Chair. AppEcation 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: /0 ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minorreview The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes, Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check prlma,v contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: Jim Haves Email: 0haves rni hole com Phone Number: ( 319 887-3688 Address: 1142 East Court Street City: Iowa City State; Iowa zip Code: 52240 ❑ Contractor/Consultant Name: Pat Rnrtpn Email: Pbarten(Wbuildtosuitinc.com Phone Number: [31q 631-1051 Address: 625 First Avpnup Ste 9MA City: Coralville State: Iowa zip Code:52241 Proposed Project Information r 1 .• M.- - Use of Property: Rpntal Date Constructed (if known): Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Hntonc Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Jefferson Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Within the district, this property is classified as; ❑ Clark Street Conservation District Oil College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearbom Street Conservation District ❑ Govemor-Lucas Street Conservation District 9 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 room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of FuturePlans ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information Q other: Fence Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: —l'istAl stone steel and wood fence a 3'6" to 4' tall front of DT012edy 1137 East Burlington to receive agate across drive off of East Burlington St Materials to be Used: Limestone, painted steel, wood pickets Exterior Appearance Changes: s WMHist Pxslapp_:or_lilsroric review.doc 12M 10, Burlington Street 1131 1137 1205 1211 Pronosed fence location Painted 6d§ Steel Fence Post Painted Wood Fence Picket 4W Painted 64 Steel Fence Post Painted Steel Angle Support Painted Wood Fence Picket Fence Dotadt 0000.OD15 Vim, T..IB-�W4 A fj Of 10% IV_A�� i�o TTTTTTTT7'TT'• rwv-WTvrl j r7�j11' I rilpe Ill" `�� !�err h.11L �Ylv 3 t, O N � , �—. jt° r l' fr, h{I '� r #�� 7191 N �+g Ao! mi —��_.' � � '� r fit:. aVpA �' �, � r� i"9 � ✓ � . - - �g ' - C �1 — f; Staff Report November 13, 2014 Historic Review for 1530 Sheridan Avenue District: Dearborn Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Jennifer New and Chris Loeckle, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 1530 Sheridan Avenue, a Contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. The project consists of door and window relocation and replacement. Appficable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation GuidelinesforAlterations 4.3 Doors 4.13 Windows Sta2TComments This neighborhood developed following the completion of the Rundell streetcar line (1910) and the Longfellow School (1917). It provided housing for blue and white collar workers, the growing middle class. Popular early 20th Century house styles are common throughout the neighborhood. This two story gable roof house built c. 1930 has a steeply pitched roof that is common to the English Cottages of the Tudor Revival style. Another common characteristic of those styles is the steeply pitched gable roof entry porch. Windows throughout are double hung with six light top sash on most of the widows. Based on the 1933 Sanborn Map, which illustrates the original footprint of the house, the one-story wing located on the north side was a later addition. A dormer was also added to the west attic level at some point. To accommodate an interior remodeling of the kitchen/dining area and a laundry and bathroom, the applicant is proposing to relocate a door from the north wall of the main part of the house to the east wall of the north addition. The existing door will be replaced with a double hung window to match the historic windows in the house. The new door on the east wall of the north addition will replace an existing window. It should be noted that the existing door that is proposed to be moved, does not appear to be original to the house. It may have been added when the north addition was built. Regarding modification of door and window openings, the guidelines recommend that if an opening is to be relocated, it should be consistent with the window pattern of the historic building or buildings of similar architectural style, and should not detract from overall fenestration pattern. In staffs opinion the proposed location of the proposed door and the window are consistent with the pattern present in the original house. Regarding the proposed new door, the guidelines recommend that: 1. new door openings be trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building, 2. if a non -wood door is to be used the substitute material retains the style and appearance of the historic doors (the substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission) and 3. installing a wood screen/storm door that accepts sashes with glass or screen. In this case the applicant is proposing to use a smooth fiberglass door with a half-light and a bottom panel. When painted, smooth finish fiberglass doors have the appearance of a wooden door. The application does not indicate if there will be a screen/storm door for the new opening. The guidelines recommend a traditional wood storm door, like the storm door on the front of this house. Regarding the new window that will replace the existing door, 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 applicant is proposing to trim the new window and door to match the historic trite on the house. The proposed window is a field Wen brand wood sash with a metal clad exterior. The window has a muntin patter similar to the existing double -hung windows in the main portion of the house. It will be 42 inches wide by 59 inches tall In Staffs opinion, the proposed reconfiguration of the door and window meets the guidelines regarding fenestration pattern, trim and materials. If there is to be a storm/screen door, production information will need to be submitted to show compliance with the guidelines. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1530 Sheridan Avenue as presented in the application subject to submission of product information regarding the storm door, to be approved by staff and Commission Chair. 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: ❑ 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. Property Ow (hem ❑ Property Owner Name: 0 Address: � w �t liftA 1 �� : �� ,�Ti ►�. Information Number: ( stagy=s.� Proposed.Project Information Zip Code: 5 c-ahi iJ Address: 153c� �ri> naj Use of Property: 5.'�7 Date Constructed (if known): 3J Historic Designation ate located in the Histaw 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 'tS Dearbom Street Conservation District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Govemor-Lucas Street Conservation District ❑ Jefferson Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Within the district, this property is classified as: —,Contributing 0 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 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 --6- Photographs --0, 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 ❑ 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 Proiect Deserintion_ Materials to be Used: wbry Tub A W�vo�c� OD- �o,- E IrR�Yynauvaen W :M= o,e�Km. po� n M Q ui m Z O _j E.snro Kem m - Vhocc O gnlro Room � Y�Q d n.T} OCD re) 0 o cn cc �Q— y o 6btlN Llvbp Rnp111 �� o o 3 N > 'I'll v) ID ZSn � LY errexna E.'Uemff& Now Kkhm 8-ig-14.ewg A O \ omhPma .TT1d� �M � Q Nsw WOq El wuaz 1� cu ��I • °W ernso Z kt'.r ® B101 m O J C ENnoO O (nt3 } O tJL NNW Raam W U T4 C ztf m rn N =3 N Yo cc a; �¢- � o _ r_ Eni LMlRi Room �(, Q mA 3 Fl PoNN EfUmnffw New Kkhen 3.19-14,ew® Dining Room Mudroom Addition North Wall Elevation East Wall Elevation Proposed Changes Wall Elevations New/Loeckle Residence 1530 Sheridan Iowa City, Iowa Mark Russo a Iowa city window ,& door co � 'E QUOt@ Address: ualiriyT�rll filhT�nrlc i fbC&T,.gb1CsmriCC IowaCyAblest T �z Item 1 of i Phone: 315-351-3513 Quote Number: Date: 1012012014 Fax: 319-351-3513 Sales Person - Email: Liz@icwdco-com Customer Information Name: Address: 1; m Phone 1: — - - "' 8 a Phone 2: Pax: contact: Job Name: - Specifications a FU.D. = 37 1/2IIiw "x 81 3/4"; R.Q. = 381/2" x 82 1/4" 1 FxWW Lead Time: 1 Working Day (Cali to verity) Image is viewed from Exterior? Item Weser"iption I W r -- TO" x 6' 8" BMK-106-09E Designer Smooth Fiberglass Door- External Gro - Rignt 1 378.51 $378.51 Handlnswing 2 314" Backset- Double Bore (2 1/8" pia. Bore) w/160 (1" x 2-114") Mortise Latch Props 1 13.68 $13.68 w/Full Lip (Standard) Strike Prep w/Deadbolt ANS 9206 (1" x 2-1/4" - Standard) Strike Prep Set of Ball Bearing - US10B Oil Rubbed Bronze Hinges 1 0.00 $0,00 Primed Fmme Saver Fame w/Unfinished Rabbet Interior - 5 1/4" Jamb w/No `-xterior 1 12.03 $12.03 Trim Compression Weatherstrip 1 0.00 $0.00 Adjustable - Z Sill Oak 1 0.00 $0.00 Item Total $404.22 Order Sub Total: $404.22 i ex: $24.25 Order Total: $428.47 Version #: 5.11 Version Late: 9/1212014 JELD-WEN. WINDOWS & OOORS QUOTE BY: Liz QUOTE #: ILIZO2824 SOLD TO: Russo, Mark SHIP TO: PROJECT NAME: PO#: REFERENCE: Ship Via: Ground/Next Truck LINE NO. LOCATION BOOK CODE UNIT QTY EXTENDED SIZE INFO DESCRIPTION PRICE PRICE une-i bmgie unit RO Size: 42 1/8 X 58 3/4 4 Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 114" = 1' Line-2 —Option 2 Wide RO Size: 53 1/2 X IM1 lollME Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = V QQ-2.17.1.1480 aSH37000 Quote Date; 10/17/2014 Frame Size : 41 3/8 X 58 (Outside Casing Size: 413/8 X 58) Custom Wood Double Hung, Auralast Pine, Concealed Interior Jamb Liner Primed Exterior, Natural Interior, No Exterior Trim, 51/4 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Standard Double Hung, Beige Jambliner, White Hardware, Deluxe Cam Lock(s) w/Concealed Tilt Latch No Finger Lifts, UltraVue Mesh Brilliant White Screen, US National-WDMA/ASTM, PG 35, Insulated Low-E 366 Annealed Glass, Standard Spacer, Argon Filled, Traditional Glz Bd, 7/8" Putty SOL w/Penn Wood Trad'L Bead Int BAR, Primed Aluminum SDL, Light Bronze Shadow Bar, Colonial Tap Lite(s) Only 3 Wide 2 High Top **Screens on Wood Double Hung Units Without Trim Have No Method for Attachment. Clear Opening:38w, 24.1h, 6.3 sf PEV 2014.2.1.986/PDV 6.065 (05127/14) PW Main Line Item Frame Size : 52 3/4 X 56 (Outside Casing Size: 52 3/4 X Custom Wood Mull Aurala it Primed Exterior, Natural Interio Factory Mu , 5 1/4 Jamb, 4/ ick, Insulated Low 36 neale( Traditional Glz Bd, Vertical Spread Mull 1 Verti PEV 2014.2.1.996/PI)V 6.065 (05/27114) PW $756.68 1 $756.68 Mull, Double Hung Product, Glass, Standard Spacer, Argon Filled, 2" Wide, Page 1 of 2(Prices are subject to change.) Drawings are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale, All orders are subject to review by 1ELD-WEN 311202824 - 10/20/2014 - 7:50 PM Last Modified: 10/20/2014 to Yi Y FA 1y's'i3� L � .� � = y wr d -- �x-3= �-� � ♦ { ' � ��!' LC'Ye i� 0 � ��n i N � h' I - , f • -1 jj rl -40 i .*ANEW ref , r f a w•) f_LL -iY .:r:a�� y�Z,r •1 ice'? F'i.�•,'�, -�+,�' 4 " i �" `.,_ �: +...r � a _ F. , l(Y2112014 owtaim Staff Report November 13, 2014 Historic Review for 1411 Sheridan Avenue District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, David and Sondra Smith, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 1411 Sheridan Avenue, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of basement window enlargement and a window well. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation GuidehnesforAlterations 4.13 Windows Staff Comments This one and one-half story house built c. 1925-1930 is a good example of a simplified Bungalow/Craftsman design. It is representative of many dwellings in the Rundell Addition, u7bich was developed after the completion of the Rundell streetcar line in 1910 and the construction of Longfellow School in 1917. It features a symmetrical entrance porch, narrow clapboard siding and a small rectangular bay that extends out on the west side (similar to the house next door). The eave returns feature a scalloped design (also similar to the house next door). It still has its original wood sash storm windows. The foundation appears to be brick that has been painted. Although an addition has been made to the rear, a door has been sided over on the east side, and the porch rails have been replaced with a metal railing, the house retains much of its original design. The applicant is proposing to convert the north basement window on the west side of the house into an egress window by increasing its size and adding a poured concrete window well. The proposed window is a Quaker Brighton' casement window, which is a wood sash window with an extruded aluminum clad exterior. The window has a muntin pattern similar to the existing double -hung windows on the main floor of this house, and is a 30 inch wide by 48 inch tall to allow emergency egress. The guidelines state that the material used for the new window well must appear similar to the existing foundation material. In this case, the poured concrete walls of the window well are an appropriate material for the painted brick foundation. The guidelines state that new egress windows should match the size, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the existing historic windows in the house. Metal -clad, solid -wood windows are acceptable. In this case, the window selected meets the guidelines. In Staffs opinion the work meets the guidelines and should be approved. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project at 1411 Sheridan Avenue, as presented in the application. Appikat-on for !Hitoricl Ykeview 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/HPhaadbook For Staff Use: Date submitted: (Q / &/4 ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ CertificateofAppmpriateness Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minorreview The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must. comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the 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 (BJeasecheckprim(�e++iyconmcapetannl ❑ Property Owner Nam: �F%dV14 b CondY6.. \YnPft� Email: Phone Number.(-?Iq � � �zUS ee 787-332-04-11 Address: Sher; Aan hys� City: J,. 11 o / 1State: IA Zip Code: 521OLD ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: _ yip trsr a'7 rH a It b: r Y+tea Email: r6nnaa5tuT�radL a.+a.ravh PhorteNumber.(31?) 644?-3601 Address: f b IS oY l$ o City: '7rU .rc; T14 Staw: 14 Zip code:.i,� 2� Proposed Project Information Address: H/ I )Sko r i c" AV et '1- (I Use of Property: �e $+ de n4i 1,( Date Constructed (if known): A f -/V% V ,?-O I q Historic Designation (Maps sa lwaW in the Histar a Preservatim Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR. ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location):-,rPr-er oc +n ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ East College Street Historic District 04-Deasiwm Street Conservation District ❑ Notthside Historic District ❑ Govemor-Lucas Sheet Conservation ➢istrict ❑ Jefferson Street Historic District 53ALongfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Within the district, this property is classified as: yld/Contribudng 0 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 amailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such w siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacementiconshuction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawing to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs Product htformation L q re e'5 W ,% A e to El Construction of new building 7y.504 /l tJ i rld o'J 'X-� Well ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or ourbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Furore Plans ❑ Renal 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 ProposedProject Details Project Description: v .... � _ Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: S.TCD\IuA PwsVpp_far_ItisMrk_mview.d. 121I3 ►+�� Qarotation: L1TE IfilC. 319-626-2253 985 238TH STREET AMY@LITEWINDOWS.CO NORTH LIBERTY,IA52317 h1, Quote Fame: Stumpf: SDI. 2 Quote,;: SQBTA005326_1 US,!( Nn.me: Amy Mahoney Line Label Quantity UOM Part Number Unrt rx,e„ded 1 1 EA Quaker Unit $452,59 $452.59 Series: Brighton Exact Size: 30 X 48 Rough Opening: 30 3/4 X 481/2 II .. Bfadc 1 Color:VA*te,PalntType:2604,lnterior Finish:Pre Painted White, Glass: LowE 7036/Clear - Stnd,Argon Filled,Muntin:SDL-7/8" MBG-916, ••Vi WEd rrnm Ex rlor" Hardware:White,Vent-1:Total Width Vent,Ship Hardware:With Product, Screen:Full Screen,Screen Color:Whlte,Material:Better View (TM),Ship:Screen With Product, Install Acc:Hinged Nailing Fin,Depth:4 9/16" Jamb Depth, Unit:1-Casement Hinge Left Exact Size: 30 X 48,Meets Egress NFRC - U-Factor:0.3SHGC:0.23V r:0.41CR:61 Rating: LC-60 Muntin Spacing From Top Of Main Frame: 24" Overall Rating: DP-60 2" SOL TO MIMIC DH r Jill a 11'W", �L mm, gg 1 •i�lt: �SMR Mon' 4t� p u• i PP' I IUY✓'i l�C Historic Prescrvation Comniission 07� I.'., 00 i,'.A'rihii a Stn...t, I(5 (_i.'.1 l ^'i) MEMORANDUM Date: November 7, 2014 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner 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 ate the projects approved in since the August report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 727 N. Lucas Street — Brown Street Historic District — repair foundation 508 S. Summit Street — Summit Street Historic District — remove aluminum and repair wood soffits 1037 Washington Street — College Hill Conservation District — replace deteriorated garage door 528 N. Gilbert Street — Northside Historic District — repair front porch soffits 224 N. Dodge Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District - repair chimneys Minor Review — Pre -approved items — Staff review 821 N. Linn Street — Brown Street Historic District — replace deteriorated windows in back porch 1120 Sheridan Avenue — Longfellow Historic District — replace back stairs and railing 418 Clark Street — Clark Street Conservation District — radon mitigation 411 Davenport Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District — replace deteriorated windows 820 Ronalds Street — Brown Street Historic District — replace deteriorated windows in garage 430 S. Summit Street — Summit Street Historic District — replace deteriorated windows in garage Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review None MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2014 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Aaran, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Kate Corcoran, Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell MEMBERS ABSENT: Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Heidi Anderson, Erica Damman, David Kacena 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. CONSENT AGENDA CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS; 717 Grant Street. Miklo said this is a window replacement project on the consent agenda. He said he would not go into detail unless Commission members had questions or wanted a full report. MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 717 Grant Street as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Wapner absent). CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 427 Clark Street. Miklo said this is a contributing property on the west side of the street in the Clark Street Conservation District. He said the propcsal is to build a new front porch. Miklo said he checked the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, and it appears that at one time there was a full-length front porch on the property, but he did not know when that was removed. Miklo stated that the house itself is a very simple, vernacular house. He said that some refer to this as an I house, because it is shaped like an I and is one room deep. Miklo said this house has an extension on the back. Miklo said the Commission has approved previous projects on this site, including a small, second floor addition and some other improvements over the years. He said there are some HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 9, 2014 Page 2 of 10 concept drawings in the packet showing the general design of the porch. Miklo said that perhaps a better indication of what it will look like is the porch next door, which was built by the same person who will be constructing this porch. Miklo said there are some differences in that the proposal for 427 Clark Street is to bring the porch all the way to the edge of the house. He said the roofline will also likely extend a few inches beyond in order to protect the edge of the porch, which is a common practice. Miklo said that rather than having a porch ceiling and ends on the roof, the proposal is to leave the area open so that one will basically see the exposed rafters. He said there would be a bead board type ceiling on the underside of the porch roof. Miklo said that although it is not really a traditional design for a porch roof, staff feels it is a good interpretation or simplified version of what one would typically see on a simple house like this. He said it is perhaps appropriate for a conservation district that one is not recreating something but is showing the general indication of what a porch here would look like. Miklo said there is an exception being requested for this porch, and a similar exception was granted for the neighboring porch, in that generally tongue and groove fir porch flooring is required for porches. He said that an exception may be granted in conservation districts on a case by case basis for decking type material, which is being proposed in this case. Miklo said that a more traditional type skirting than that which is on the neighboring porch is being proposed. Miklo said staff finds that this does meet the guidelines for porches, and the staff report details the things staff and the Commission normally consider when reviewing porches. He said staff is recommending approval subject to the final details being approved by staff and the chair. Damman, the owner of the property, said she was available to answer questions. MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 427 Clark Street as presented in the application, including an exception to allow the use of deck flooring, subject to final plan details being approved by chair and staff. Durham seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Wagner absent). 604 Grant Street. Miklo stated that this is a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the house is roughly mid -block between Court and Center Streets, on the east side of the street. Miklo said this property has been before the Commission on a few occasions in the past. He said originally it had just a small entry porch on the left side of the house, but the Commission approved the reconstruction of that as a full porch a few years ago. Miklo said that windows were also approved for replacement. He added that at one point, a single -car garage was approved for this property; however, it was never built. Miklo said this proposal is to build a two -car garage with a loft above it, on the north side of the house. He said the garage would be set back quite far from the street, in accordance with the guidelines. Miklo said the garage would be behind the front plane of the house. He said an earlier drawing showed it lining up with the rear of main part of the house, but a newer drawing HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 9, 2014 Page 3 of 10 shows it even farther back. Miklo said that either is acceptable, but staff will need to clarify the location before a building permit can be issued. Miklo showed a photograph of the property from the air and pointed out the features. He said there is a platted alley to the back, but it was never built because the creek is back there. Miklo said the guidelines call for placing new garages behind the house with access off an alley if available, although an alley is obviously not available here. If the driveway is going to be on the street, which is what is being proposed here, he said the guidelines discuss having a narrow driveway, eight to ten feet wide at the front of the lot, with it widening at the garage entrance. Miklo said that as noted, the garage would be two levels: the car level and a level on the upper part of the garage that could be used for storage or a finished, loft -type space. He said the photograph shows that there is a slope to this property, so one side of the entrance will be higher than the other, which results in quite a bit of exposed foundation on the south side of the property and the back side of the garage. Miklo said the house itself has a brick veneer foundation. He said the proposal here is to use concrete, and the guidelines say that is acceptable in that if one is not able to match the foundation material of the main structure, a simple concrete foundation or stucco -type foundation is appropriate. Miklo said the guidelines would not allow for a fake or stamped brick foundation. Miklo said the windows on the garage would match those on the house but would be slightly smaller in size, which is appropriate. Miklo stated that although the illustration does not show this, the applicant has indicated that the windows will have divided lights to match those on the house. He said the guidelines discuss a garage or outbuilding being smaller in size or scale and the finish not being as elaborate as the main structure Miklo said that two garage doors are proposed, and that is recommended by the guidelines. He showed an illustration of the garage doors and the carriage -style door, which is very appropriate for this type of structure. Miklo said he would even suggest that, given the quality and character of the door, having one wide single door would be inappropriate in this location. Miklo showed the plan for the garage. He said the actual, pedestrian level entrance is up a few feet, so one would go into the garage and then walk down to the floor level for the car space or up to the loft space. Miklo showed a profile demonstrating the amount of storage or possible finished space above the garage. Miklo said that he initially questioned the position of the windows, given that they look quite low, when he first saw the plan. He said that because of the grade and the ceiling height, it really is not possible to move them up. Miklo stated that these windows will be on the house side of the garage, so they won't be highly visible. Miklo said staff's recommendation in the staff report is to approve this as submitted, subject to a site plan showing the proposed curb cut, drive, and drive location and also product information on the pedestrian door. He said the site plan has been received, so that is no longer needed as a condition. Miklo said that prior to issuing a building permit, staff will need verification that the door on the side meets the standards, which would mean basically a fiberglass door probably with panels on the bottom. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 9, 2014 Page 4 of 10 Miklo said that at this point staff is recommending approval subject to product information for the door being supplied prior to the issuance of the building permit. Sandell asked if there are other properties in the neighborhood that have this situation and if they have a standard setback for the base of the garage that could be emulated. Miklo responded that there are not many new garages in this neighborhood; most of them are older, historic garages. He said he did not have an aerial photograph, but most if not all of the garages in this area are single -stall wide. Miklo said this is pretty much in keeping with the position of most garages in the neighborhood. Miklo said there is a Porte-cochere on the side of the house where there is a curb cut. He said it would be unusual in this neighborhood to have two driveways and the amount of concrete that comes with that, so staff is recommending that that curb cut be removed as a condition of approval. Miklo said that with the new garage there would be there would be four parking spaces (two in the garage and in the drive that would replace the one that is recommended for removal. Miklo said the guidelines really don't address that. He said the Commission could leave it there; it is just a suggestion on the part of staff to make this more compatible with the neighborhood. Corcoran asked about the location of the proposed driveway in relation to trees on the property. Anderson, one of the owners of the house, said the driveway would go to the right of the tree, lined up with the left stall of the garage. Miklo stated that the zoning code requires that driveways be three feet off the property line, unless they are curbed and designed to drain away from the adjacent property. He said he believes this is proposed to be five feet, so it more than meets the requirement. Michaud asked if the carriage house would be considerably shorter than the main house, since it is lower anyway. Anderson confirmed this. MOTION: Baker moved 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; 2) the current curb cut and driveway being removed; and 3) the option for the applicant to Install a single -garage door of the same quality of the two that are currently proposed. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Warmer absent. 420 N. Dodge Street. Mikio said this property is in the Goosetown Horace Mann Conservation District. He said the property is on the east side of Dodge Street between Fairchild and Davenport Streets. Miklo said the proposal is to remove a chimney from the house. He said the chimney is obviously damaged, and the packet includes written material from the applicant explaining the issues that have occurred with the chimney over the years. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 9, 2014 Page 5 of 10 Miklo said the guidelines indicate that, where a chimney is a prominent feature of a house or an important architectural feature such as those that are part of a fireplace that is in the side, it should not be removed. He said that although this is visible from the street, it is on the back side of the house and is not a key feature of the house. Miklo said the Commission has looked at other proposals to remove a chimney and leave a metal pipe, which is not something that would be seen on an historic house, and the Commission has denied those proposals. Miklo stated that in this case, staff recommends approval, finding that the chimney is not a prominent architectural feature of this house. MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 420 North Dodge Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: 1) the chimney including the metal pipe being removed to the roof line with the clarification that if the metal pipe were to be retained as a functioning chimney, staff would not recommend approval of removal of the brick; and 2) the roof being repaired with shingles that match the existing. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Wanner absent). 718 E. Davenport Street Miklo said this is a proposal to demolish a garage or a small barn at 718 East Davenport Street in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. He stated that the property is on the north side of Davenport Street mid -block between Dodge and Lucas Streets. Miklo said the staff report was in error in calling this a contributing property. He said that it is actually a key property in the district. Miklo said that a study by Marlys Svendsen, a historian who has consulted for the Commission, indicates that the property is individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Miklo said that the property was built in 1890 by Joseph Cerny. Miklo stated that the Cerny family was a prominent Czech family in Goosetawn and in the establishment of Saint Wenceslaus Church. He stated that this is one of the more prominent houses in Goosetown, perhaps due to Joseph's success as a businessman and as a bricklayer. Miklo said that Joseph's son, William, built a house next door to Joseph. Miklo said he believes the house farther to the west was also built by the same family. Miklo said that the small barn or garage located off the alley at the back of the property can be seen from the street. He said the barn represents the small buildings that were built for horses or livestock that were once common in Goosetawn. Miklo stated that several of them have been lost. He said there are not many of them left that are this representative of what used to be there. Miklo said this has a fairly steep pitched roof, with a board and batten type siding. He said staff believes that a garage door was added at a later date. Miklo said that Frank Wagner, who is a contractor, visited the property with him and inspected it. Miklo said that based on the construction techniques and some of the lumber, Wagner believes that it dates from the same period as the house. Miklo said that some of the planks in the roof are 14 inches wide, which is a dimension that was not available much after 1900. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 9, 2014 Page 6 of 10 Miklo showed a side view of the barn, stating that similar to the house, it has a standing seam metal roof. He said there is a little lean-to roof extension or addition. Miklo pointed out the portion of the roof that is in plywood and in fairly poor condition, although the metal part of the roof is actually in pretty good shape compared to metal roofs seen repaired and painted around town. He said that it does show some slight signs of rust, but it is something that could be corrected with a coating. Miklo showed a view from the house looking back toward the alley and a view from the side. He said there was some question as to the age of this building, as the applicant had indicated that there perhaps was a time when this building was not there. Miklo said he therefore reviewed the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, which are maps that were done throughout the United States for fire insurance purposes. He said they are very accurate and were available for the first time in this neighborhood in 1899 and continued to be updated until approximately 1970, when they were discontinued. Miklo stated that the barn, or a building of this size and location, does appear pretty much where it is today. He said he checked maps from 1906, 1916, 1920, and up through 1970, and they all show a building of this size in this general location, as well as other small buildings located on the alley on this lot. Miklo said that based on that and Wagner's examination of the construction techniques and materials, he believes this building was built at about the same time as the house. When considering demolition, Miklo said the Commission is asked to consider three things: the condition of the building, the integrity of the building or whether it is similar to the way it appeared historically, and its architectural significance. He said that as indicated in the report, staff feels this building is pretty much as it was when it was built. Miklo said there might have been repairs to the siding over the years. He said he suspects it was lifted off a stone foundation and put on a concrete foundation and the garage door was added at some point. Even with the evidence of some remodeling, Miklo said the overall form of the garage has pretty good integrity. In terms of architectural significance, Miklo said this is a representation of the types of barns that were once found throughout Goosetown. He said he checked the book written by Mary Beth Slonneger, who is an historian who has done a lot of research in the Goosetown area. Miklo said Slonneger pointed out him to the picture that was taken on Davenport Street, which he believes is actually the barn to the west on the property that was built by this same family. Miklo said it shows the simple character of these types of buildings that were once found throughout the neighborhood. Miklo said, based on that, he believes it is historically significant. Regarding the condition, Miklo said there are obviously some issues with this barn or garage. He said it does show some deferred maintenance, and the City's building department would cite it for peeling paint, so obviously the paint needs to be scraped. Miklo said that some of the boards have rotted through, but in staffs estimation, probably over 50% and perhaps as much as 75% of the boards are in reasonable condition and simply need to be scraped and painted. Miklo said the material is fairly inexpensive, so it would not be difficult to replace the rotting wood on this barn. He said that in fact some of the upper parts could be salvaged to patch other portions of the barn. Miklo said Wagner felt the greatest condition concern of this barn is its relationship to the ground. Miklo said Wagner felt it would be better to clear some dirt away HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 9, 2014 Page 7 of 10 from it, and ideally, it would be lifted and put on a new concrete slab, which would make it more resistant to weather conditions. Miklo stated that even though there are some condition problems, Wagner felt that this could fairly easily be repaired, given its simple construction technique and materials. Miklo said Wagner thought the biggest expense would be the new concrete. Miklo said that because this is a rental property, a new concrete parking pad would need to be provided anyway, so that would cover much of the expense of repairing this building. Miklo showed other examples, including a barn in the Woodlawn Historic District that was raised and then lowered onto a new concrete foundation and is still in use today. Based on the historical significance of this simple building and its fairly simple construction techniques, Miklo said staff would recommend that the demolition permit be denied and that the building be repaired. He said that at a minimum, the Building Department will require that the rotting lumber be replaced and that the building be scraped and painted. Miklo said the Building Department would not require a new foundation; however, staff would advise that, for the long term, it would be less expensive to do that sort of repair than to build a new garage on the property. Although not a consideration in terms of the Commission's guidelines, Miklo said this is a neighborhood in which the City is encouraging investment and encouraging home ownership. He said that retaining and repairing this barn would add value to this property versus just having a concrete parking pad there. Kacena said he represents the Chudacek Partnership that owns this property. Kacena said he wanted to point out some flaws in the staff report regarding this garage. Kacena said staff feels the barn was likely built at the same time as the house. He presented a photograph from 1915 or 1916 and said that there is a shed in the back yard there, but the . 11ne of the shed is turned 90 degrees from the way of the garage that is there now. Kacena said there is also what is most likely an outhouse next to it. Kacena said staff indicated the shed was built as a small barn for a horse or for small livestock. Kacena said that on the inside of that shed, there is absolutely no wear and tear from any type of livestock there, including no rubbing up against the framing, and no indication of horses chewing on the boards at all. Kacena said the construction of the building indicates that it was built with used lumber, as there are several different dimensions of lumber in the place. He said that those dimensions were never really certified probably up until the 1960s, if any of the stuff was provided by a local lumber yard. Kacena said that in the photo neither the house nor the shed is roofed with a metal roof. He said the metal roofing obviously has come at a much later point. Kacena said that it is also said that there is also a small loft accessible from the alley there. He stated that there is no loft nor is there any indication that there ever was a loft in there. Kacena said he understands from the owner that the door was cut in there to allow them to put storm windows from the house and the house at 710 there and store them up above the garage. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 9, 2014 Page 8 of 10 Kacena said he actually believes that there really is not any historic significance to the property and that it is certainly not economically feasible to lift it up and put a new foundation under it. He said the owners are just trying to get some more parking there to bring it up to what the rental codes are going to require there. Corcoran asked what the homeowner believes the cost would be of raising this up. Kacena said he could not get anyone to give him a price on that in a short amount of time. Miklo stated that this is a rental property, so the owners would be required to provide two off- street parking spaces. He said that if this were repaired, then an additional pad would have to be poured. Michaud asked if there is no longer a bay window on the house. Miklo replied that there is still a bay window on the house. Kacena said that the front porch was built later on, and it cuts into the roofline of 'that. Miklo said the porch was enlarged. Miklo said that a lot of the original roofs in Iowa City were wood shingle, and the standing seam metal roofs came from around 1900 through about 1920. He said the Sanborn maps that show a building in this location date from 1890. Miklo said, in terms of when the house had some remodeling done, the roof and the fact that the barn has a metal roof probably from the same era would indicate that if this wasn't built around the same time as the house. Regardless of the remodeling the house and barn appear to date from around the turn of the century. Agran said it seems that some of things brought up about the provenance of the building are speculative in nature. He said he has worked on a property directly across the street from this house. Agran said there is nothing consistent about the framing of the entire house. He said the lumber is of varied dimensions, and he thinks it was actually built out of repurposed wood from other properties in the neighborhood. Agran said he has been in a lot of other buildings where wood has been reused, so he is not sure that it proves one thing or the other about the age of the building. Regarding the dimensions, Agran said the foundation probably is not original to the building so that at the time the building was constructed, given that picture, it could have been moved or adjusted. He said that in discussing the importance of the building, the things the contractor brings up he is not certain prove one way or 'the other. Agran said that some of the things Miklo he has brought up prove that, at the very least, if this was not built immediately with the house it was built shortly therefore. He said that it seems to him that the building is undeniably very old. Miklo said that although it is hard to tell from the photograph, this may be the same building that was turned to allow access to the garage. Agran agreed and said that if the building was constructed before it would have been used to house an automobile, the orientation of it along that axis would not have been as important. He said that if the owners were rebuilding the garage to be utilized for a vehicle, it might have been rotated when the concrete floor was poured, although he said that is equally speculative. Miklo said that on the Sanborn map from 1920, one can see another small shed on this property. He said it did show an additional building and showed the location and showed the location of another one as well. Miklo said that there are not any others on the property. In HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 9, 2014 Page 9 of 10 terms of livestock, he said the building might have been used for chickens or geese. Miklo showed a historic photo of the barn next door that has the chicken enclosure right next to it. Kacena said the barn in that photo brings more to mind the property at 710 Davenport Street with that garage there and the other garages to the :vest of there facing the other direction. MOTION: Michaud moved to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the garage at 718 East Davenport Street due to its historic importance in the Goosetown Neighborhood. Agran seconded the motion. The motion to deny carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Waaner absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Miklo said he did not have time to put the list together, so he will include it in the next agenda packet. DISCUSSION OF ANNUAL AWARDS PROGRAM: Miklo stated that he. Swaim, Alicia Trimble, Erica Blair from Friends of Historic Preservation and intern, Bailee McClellan, have been preparing for the awards program, which will be held in January. He said that Swaim has asked for volunteers to be on the selection committee to choose the properties to receive awards. Miklo said this involves making note of properties around town or speaking with contractors and painters to find projects that were done in the past year or two that have not yet received awards and then serving on the committee to look at all the nominees to select those worthy of awards based on quality of workmanship, etc. He said the committee would probably meet three or four times before the awards ceremony. Agran, Clore, and Corcoran volunteered to serve on the committee. Miklo said the idea is to reward good work and to promote preservation by showing how to do it. COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: Miklo said that Chery Peterson is now working at the State Historical Society in Des Moines. Michaud asked if there would be an assistant to replace her. Miklo said that at this point a decision about filling that role has not been made. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2014: MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's September 11, 2014 meeting, as written. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Waqner absent). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z 0 V3 C� G O U Z O H W W w d U H N 2 X X X X X X I X X X OLU � O CD X X X X X X X X X X r o x ' xxxao xx w 'o ry X X i X X X O O O X X X I 'w O x X X X X X X X X 0 X 0 i X 0 X X 0 X X X X M X X X I X X X X i X �L O M a i:O X X X i X X - X i X X ri M a M aw X X X i X X x X i X x a x x x i X X O X O O LU 1 x i x X I X X 1 X x T I 0 o r X i X I i j X X X 0 i X X to n LO 'O �O d 4J N N N N M M f' M M M M M M o�7' M M { Z Q � j Q W i H Z j W' Z Y 2 rn i Y ItQa W m Q g w ' I d o aiQ : a L L3 IL Z C L O'U) Z Z W Y G a 7 Z wXO Qu V m U Q J { w xo'o w Y