HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-2015 Historic Preservation CommissionIowa City Historic preservation Commission
Thursday
June 11, 2015
5:30 p.m.
n.f
Emma Harvat Hall
City Hall
I
Thursday, June 11, 2015
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Emma J. Hatvat Hall
5:30 p.m.
n
1. 1009 E. College Street — East College Street Historic District (remove and replace window
at reduced height to prevent future deterioration)
2. 827 Rundell Street — Dearborn Street Conservation District (new gable front entry roof,
new rear basement door, new side porch railing)
3. 1102 E. College Street - East College Street Historic District (damaged chunneyremoval
and replacement with modern exposed metal chimney)
1. 21 Landmark Downtown district (roor, i.; ' .:6
and gutter .r..ir or refa to non-histotic portionsbuilding)
1. 1009 East College Street- East College Street Historic District (replacement of siding and
trim with cement -board siding and wood or cement board trim)
2. 625 S. Governor Street- Govemor-Lucas Street Conservation District (replacement of two
deteriorated attic windows with Marvin Wood windows -one double -hung and one
casement for egress requirements)
3. 509 S. Lucas Street- Governor Lucas Street Conservation District (removal of old storm
windows and replacement of poorly repaired windows with Jeld-Wen sash packs and
simulated divided lights)
Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review
1, 712 Ronalds Street- Brown Street Historic District (removal of existing porch railing and
columns and replacement with new posts and siding filled railing)
F) Discussion of Historic Preservation Plan priorities and annual work program
G) Consideration of Minutes for May 14, 2015
H) Commission Information and Discussion
1. Incentives for continued occupancy of historic buildings
2. 518 Bowery to receive Preservation At Its Best Award
I) Adjournment
Staff Report
Meeting Date: 11 June 2015
I3istoric Review fot 1004 East Colle3ii ta Iowa City IA
District: East College Street Historic District
Classification: Contributing structure
The applicant, Andy Litton, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration at 1009 East College Street, a
contributing property in the East College Street Historic District. The project consists of an alteration in the
size of an historic window. It should be noted that a proposed siding and trim replacement project in this
application was reviewed as a minor review and approved by staff.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines°
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.13 Windows
This house was one of the first homes built east of the hill crest at Summit Street. The style of the home is
transitional between Greek Revival and Italianate. The foundation is a mix of stone and brick, the walls are
composed of wood lap siding, and the roof is standing seam metal. Sometime after 1990 the porch was
rebuilt to cover the full front of the house.
The applicant is proposing to remove a window on the north (front) fagade at the west side of the second
floor and replace it with a Quaker Brighton series double hung window an aluminum clad solid wood
window. The frame and sill of the existing window is compromised by the flashing of the porch roof and has
resulted in water infiltration and deterioration of the sill and trim. For this reason, the applicant proposes to
reduce the overall height of the window by approximately 9 inches so that the head will remain at the existing
height and the sill will align with the adjacent window on the west facing wall. This will allow for proper
flashing of the porch roof and the inclusion of the entire window sill and trim. Trim will be replaced when it
does not exist or is deteriorated with cement board, wood, or other wood substitute to be approved by staff.
The guidelines recommend that if a window is to be relocated it should not detract from the overall
fenestration pattern. Badly deteriorated windows may be replaced with new ones that match the type, size,
sash width, trim, use of divided lights and overall appearance of the historic windows. Wood windows should
be used to replace historic wood windows and metal -clad, solid -wood windows are acceptable. Divided lights
may be created with mundn bars that are adhered to both sides of the glass. The Exceptions for windows
allow for a change in size for egress requirements as a last resort.
In staffs opinion, the existing window sill is too close to the roofline of the porch to provide room for
adequate flashing. The portion of the window sill that exists has deteriorated significantly. Reducing the
height of the window to align with the most adjacent window (A in the photo), while altering the appearance
of the historic window, will provide a solution to the flashing problem and seems to be an adequate aesthetic
resolution as well. The trim detail on the window to be replaced is the same as windows around the comer (B
in the photo) on the west fayade. Staffs opinion is that in order to retain as much of the historic integrity as
possible, this replacement window should match the window around the comer (B) with trim and divided
light pattern so that trim detail is not removed. Similarly, the sash should be a dark color to match the existing
windows.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for this portion of the project at 1009 East College Street,
as presented in the application with the following conditions:
• The divided light pattern and window trim detail match existing windows like window B in the
photo.
• All trim and siding shall be wood, cement board or a wood substitute to be approved by staff.
• The siding replacement portion of the application shall follow the previously distributed COA. (a
copy is included with this staff report)
�t
O
�y M
M 11 =AY e
A 1 f N :i } f t f ; M
a with building }A zoning 4{' 1i must
y does. not aapplications k compliance I If
comply with
all is Al 0 codes and be reviewed by the building division Prior t the issuance of n.
building permit.
Meedng Schedule: The DPC meets the second t Y(` i) M each month. 3.. Applicativins a- due A the offfee1
Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on (T P(} . three weeIrspriorR the metting.
See
aftached documentf
application deadlines and meeting data.
r 1},ty owner/Appliestat Informatim
° 1t
Address:
Email: Phone Number
Address: -Lq 45
City: C- ('
Address: L'il
State: :i : lap Code. a
. _ p C.ode:" — ...
Use of Property: — .L^°t°- te Constructed (if knoW4 . ......
HisWric Dedpardon
mmte, HuMe. )
® This Property is a local historic landmark -
OR
• This property is within a historic or conservation district (choose looatlon):
fl Brown Street Historic Distnec fl Clant Sued Conservation
District
College green HistoricDistrict ❑ College Hill ConservationDistrict
Bad College Street HiStOTIe District ❑ Dembom Stroor Conservation District
11owHistoric District ❑ own /Horace on District
langfe❑ N °de Historic District ❑ C,ovemor-Lucas Street 'on District
❑ summit Street Historic District
fl woodlawn Historic ° 'ot
Within the district this Property is classified :
0 Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric
IN Coutriboung
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
ftically,projects entailing an additionto the building footprint such as a room,porch, deck, etc.).
❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs
41 ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans
Alteration
Cr 'pity projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch
replammenyconsh wbon, 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 lnformat on
❑ Coustruction of new building
❑ Building Mevations ❑ Floorplans ❑ Photographs
❑ Product Iuformation ❑ 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
„ Renoir or restoration of an erdsting structure that will not change its appearance.
666 ❑ photographs ❑ Product Information
❑ Other:
Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application.
Materials to be Used:
hiWc&/Wp IDr_histo,i=im.dw 6/4lr4
r'
IOWA SITE INVENTORY FORM
CFN 269-1357
11/26/90
Location end Functional Inform: ion
1. Historic Name(s) house
2. Common Name(s) _ house
3. Street Address
4. City _ w Cit1
6, Subdivision J. & J.W.-Clark'!
9. Legal Description: (If Rura'
10. Historic Function(s)
Survey ID Number IQW-167
Database ID Number
R & C Number
— Vicinity [ ] 5. County'_ Johnson
r. Block(s) B. Lotw
Township Range Section -Quarter of. Quarter
of
11. Current Function(s) ffiultl-family residence
12. Owner _
Address
BHP Sources: Cty. Resource [] HAS$ [] Photo [ NR [] Tax Act [] Grants [) DOE [] R&C []
(Plat Map) (Sketch Map)
N
A11111 i!IWI 111111113
nk Hill :il
0511n ih11:ilr ■
(Source: Iowa City planning dept., 1994)
Original porch probably removed;
house has
newer front steps and rail.
Contributing structure
(Integrity Notes)
summit
East dollege
N
JJJJJJJJ
11, f!
fp 171PIt',
N
LITE INC.
Quotation: Phone:
M.'
AMY@UTEWINDOWS.CO NORTH;
Quote 10 •leg QuoteSQBTA0063361
User Name: Eric Waddell
2 1 EA Quaker Unit $462.14 $402.14
Series: Brighton
4 Exact Size: 30 X 54 Rough Opening: 30 3/4 X 541/2
t
Color:Black,PalettType:2604,lnteriorFinish:Pre Painted White,
Glass:EnergyBasic (Dual Silver),Argon Filled,Muntin:SDL 11/4' MBG-
se.VlavvedFrCmExLe%or"* 9/16,
Hardware:White,Sash:Sweep Lock,
Jamb Llw:Belge,
Sereen:Full Screen,Material:Better View (TM),Ship:Sereen With Product,
Install Acc:Hinged Nailing Fin,Depth:4 9/16" Jamb Depth,
Unit:1-Double Hung No Plough Exact Size: 30 X 54,NOT Egress,
NFRC - U-Factor:0.31SHGC:0.23VT:0.38CR:60
Rating: R-SO
Overall Rating: DP-50
Tax 6.060 % tW35
Total Quote Value $101.13
Quote Grand Total $801.13
(may be subject to sales tax)
61ndInAdual units grateer than gateway she may hems a reduced rating Per Quaker V ndaw Produch slmu allon of AAMA 2502-07 WmparatNe Analysts Prodcedure for Window and Door
Produce
'Overall Dedgn Pressure of ma)Wasseroplis maybe less than the compiled values of Individual units per Quaker Window Produar shnuUtlon OFAAMA45616 VoluraaryPaiormance
Rating Method for Mulled F D®n 'as
`Tharmd ratings based an NFRCtast she
Printed On: 4/24/2015 5:44 AM Page 3 of 3
Staff Report
Meeting Date: 11 June 2015
Hiataric Review for B27 Rttndell Street Iowa City U
District Dearborn Street Conservation District
Classification: Contributing
The applicant, Ellen Van Laere, is requesting approval for a proposed addition at 827 Rundell Street, a
contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. The project consists of the addition of a
gable roof over the front entry, a new rear basement door and new porch rails for the side porch.
Mpg °cable Rega,lations and Guidelines
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.1 Balustrades and Handrails
4.3 Doors
4.7 Mass and Roofiines
4.10 Porches
4.14 Wood
milt
This house is located in a neighborhood that was developed following the completion of the Rundell streetcar
line in 1910 and the construction of the Longfellow School in 1917. The streetcar ran down Rundell from
Muscatine to the comer of Sheridan, just north of this site the neighborhood provided housing for the
growing middle class of blue and white collar workers. 827 Rundell Street is a simple, single story rectangular
gabled cottage that originally had a front gable entry. It is a true vernacular structure and does not exhibit
characteristics of any particular style. It is estimated to be one of the earliest houses built in this block.
The applicant is proposing to construct a gable roof over the front entry to the home. The gable will have the
roof pitch, siding, fascia and shingle siding in the gable end to match the existing home. The length of the
exposed rafter tails will be proportionate to the overhang on the main roof. The entry roof will project from
the face of the house about 30 inches which will allow an overhead light in the soffit required by code and a
gable end overhang of 12 inches which is proportionately similar to the overhang on the main roof. The roof
will be supported by simple angle brackets. The ceiling on the entry will be either bead -board detailed
plywood or bead board.
The proposed project also includes adding handrail to the side porch between the stairs and the house and
along the stairs that will match the existing handrail with a simple top and bottom rail and square 2 x 2 inch
square spindles. The new and existing rails would be painted to blend with the existing house and trim.
The applicant will also replace the rear basement door with a smooth fiberglass door of a custom height to fit
the existing opening.
The guidelines recommend constructing new porches that are consistent with the architectural style of the
building. New handrails should have square spindles that are 1 '/2 inches or greater in width and top and
bottom rails that are at least 2 inches in thickness. All portions of new handrails should be constructed of
wood and painted. The guidelines recommend wood doors or doors that can be painted.
In staff's opinion, while the proposed gable roof over the entry is not a full porch, it is the appropriate
addition to emphasize and address the importance of the entry for a house of this style and period where a
full -porch might overwhelm the small structure. The historic survey of the property mentions a gable entry
that was removed. While photos of this entry do not appear to exist, this new gable roof may be similar to the
historic entry. The proposed entry roof is proportioned to fit well with the size of the house and will have a
similar pitch as the main roof.
The existing side deck includes a simple unpainted non -historic handrail. The proposed additional railing
would follow the guideline's recommendation in regard to style and paint and provide a more historic
appearance for this portion of the house's exterior.
The existing rear basement door is not an historic door but a later addition and is constructed of plywood and
wood framing materials. The proposed door would provide a more secure, water -tight, and appropriate door
in the place of this assembly. Because of the small size of the opening in both height and width, a full -paneled
door is not possible. The door will be custom made from a solid fiberglass door and painted to blend with the
existing house and trim. In staff's opinion, the proposed application will improve the historic appearance of
the house.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 827 Rundell Street, Iowa City IA as
presented in the application.
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/HPhandbook
For Staff Use: ryry
Date submitted:
❑ Certificate of No material Effect
❑ Certificate of Appropriateness
Jill 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.
Pr rty Owner/Applicant Inforniation
(N a4rwkp=wy�raswa¢ xprorsrwaup
❑ Property Owner Name: LcaE/1% {/flgJ LAEfQ�
Il�,llll
Address:
.33
Phone Number: (
State:
❑ Contractor/Consultant Name: PA✓)D too, P PA Iewq C4 7Y
Email: Vid�pr,®pS ioW —C: Phone Number:( If ___3 613
Address: 'd(O Q SfflN6fbN $)'
City: tow 4 Gr7Y State: (A Zip Code: , )6;L YQ
Proposed Pro,lect Information.
Address:
Use of Property: I I h/7'4 L Date Constructed (if known):
Hi w ric Iloesignation
(Maps are located in the pbsurric pnrmvini ra Ma )
❑ 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 X Dearborn Street Conservation District
❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Goosatown / Horace Main Conservation District
❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Govemor-Lucas Street Conservation District
❑ Summit Street Historic District
❑ Woodlawn Historic District
Within
the district, this Property is classified as:
ul/ Contributing 0 Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric
°..bl ,. 11. -' AI 1
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 O- 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.
' v'�1'
Project Description:
RLC A-VP/T/O+✓ OF /a SMAGL RodA OVER
��O_ti%T Dap/1 r MA®L QOX
[V-S , .
r
1
Materials to be Used:
Exterior Appearance Changes:
ldspredapp_for historicrevicw.doc 6414
ROOF
7V Ige
I"
I
'6 OL% AN WA' POLL -(-
la OV6R14AIV
O PFd rAFr'OQ 7 4,11 S
S7r"P6 F_ ol�AcKti r
� ' API
Staff Report
Meeting Date: 11 June 2015
Historic Review for 1102 East o lege Street, Iowa City IA
District. College Green historic District
Classification: Contributing structure
The applicants, Elizabeth and Tom Egenberger, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration at 1102
East College Street, a contributing property in the East College Street Historic District The project consists
of the removal of an historic chimney and its replacement with a metal chimney.
Ala +cable Regulations and GuidrUncse
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.2 Chimneys
%C Gutdchnles for Demohdon
7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features
Staff Conaments
This house is a Craftsman/Bungalow with wide bracketed overhangs and exposed beams. The house has a
brick foundation, a wood frame clad with replacement siding, composition shingles, an exposed brick
fireplace chimney on the west, and a second brick chimney in the center of the roof. This single-family
residence reflects the architectural patterns of the College Hill area and is a contributing structure to the
historic district.
The applicant is proposing the removal of the historic chimney located over the center of the house. The
chimney has been damaged by lightning and some of the bricks, mortar joints and parts of the concrete collar
are cracked. The applicant proposes to replace the historic chimney with a modem galvanized tube chimney.
The guidelines state that removing prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural
character of the building is specifically disallowed. New chimneys should be constructed with full -height
masonry in a manner consistent with the architectural style of the building. The guides allow new chimney
pipes to be boxed in and finished with thin brick to replicate the design and appearance of any existing
chimneys or the architectural style of the building.
In the past, when a property has two chimneys, the Commission has allowed an applicant to remove a
chimney that is not architecturally prominent but has not allowed it to be replaced with a metal chimney.
It is still possible that the indicated chimney may be able to be repaired. The applicant has located acceptable
brick for either repair or rebuilding of the chimney. The applicant has confirmed that it cannot simply be
removed because it is used for venting. It must be replaced.
In staffs opinion, the proposed replacement with modern metal chimney is not historically appropriate and
disallowed by the guidelines. The applicant has indicated that there are other houses in the neighborhood
with modern metal chimneys. Any modem metal chimneys visible within the historic district were either
added prior to the adoption of the Historic District and grandfathered in or were added without building
permits and therefore not appropriate. Removing the existing chimney and leaving a modem metal chimney
would adversely impact the historical character and appearance of the house. Staff recommends to the
applicant to first enquire about repairing the chimney and if not possible rebuild the chimney with either
bricks or think bricks to match the remaining chimney.
Recommended Motion
Move to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1102 East College Street, Iowa City IA as
presented in the application.
♦A. it 1-�,' 4� 4f4 s4.: �i VI AYE, 4'
r 11u
Mi. wel
■ n, i if Y f n f fe . .,, .-;.,
■ r
1, 1 .
vglranu r Dy the bUilaing 41VISIon prior 1 the inguance of
building
-J'.N,M1 "1"" ,,15 I'A, NrI kf f� 1"A rkf in
i l Y F y � 1 , f 41 111 +�/ f . ! } I '
lY1 :N1Y' ylv !."fu.
M
'I , 4. q i 1' { „✓V a , u i 1 1l
r
rf
aS
a I t al, i, S f rki nrl
,, 4 u A+•N* }+.,r,;
�
�,i (r.y i �v1 e. 1, � k 8
■
,,,1 i 4„
4 't,.y X III `y 'A ,;I,1
.... 1 I..�:.. A tl 'U' I.TY 1- 1.b.< 1 mil tl. .Ilf ITI ✓�I • A'Iv�. `°1 4A I 1. +Y IfAf' �€
A�
11 A. ^[I • f i lµ °
°+II:EI �41i4 t IY -'I?N ,il �:i ♦ I + 'M� If 41 ie
�r; Y n mn, +�:
■^. I t I l i l� �g
■'. $: Ire if x. � il�l'I ���
� .: ���� 1, 1. haul 1+�+ a u,. ,° �a ✓ii i. I .v �� I �� Pv�.u� � i s.- a ii I„
+s
❑ od:
pialw oontad the pmwntion Pima at 356-5243 for miftdals whkb need to ba iwludcd with appfic0ion.
s
Prol
Maturbdo to be Uoth
r2j!~ 7'4 L
Roodor Appearance ChOWN
C Hsr�aN.��r
MU
`"i///�%�/l//1////i�!//kll�i'r�/Gr'IIUI(MM//JAY!!h'flf1�I�I�lA11�S��Nb11YN�"v"�NY�I�S�4�`!�Y�I'�1M1�4VIA`91W4�II�I��IIY!"'lr�4YIN(/�d�l�ll"�1�J1W/Il0/�91iU;J�(Wd��Y�ffr&V�f�' NI�IIIVI�O�r�°; ��:,
9, J2 I " I ' , Jp
"Ado
7'o,91", oo, h
jjjf/�;'
o""'No, 4",
do,
'0" 'YA
1, Z
m t , oI&
A IMF ; I
As , wo
Week- , OWN wam; oo'(0/
Ov
JSof'
'bf®
"Jp,
r,
flN
OK
V11
/,Amu ISSIM 140/o
I P), IN, Nf
r
rs
u
'
F
f
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MAY 14, 2015
EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Kate Corcoran,
Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie Swaim
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gosia Clore, Frank Durham, Frank Wagner
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Anne Burnside, Robert Carlson, Liz Maas, Linda McGuire, Julie
Myers, Michael Oliveira, Beth Rapson, Chris Welu Reynolds,
Davis Rust, John Shaw, Alicia Trimble
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
* ..-*.
101
436 Grant Street.
Bristow said there is one consent agenda item for 436 Grant Street, a one and one-half story
bungalow. She said the owners plan to remove the existing chimney and rebuild it to enclose
both the fireplace and the exhaust chimney with thin bricks, as recommended by the guidelines.
Miklo said that because it is a consent item, the Commission can just vote on it, unless there are
questions.
MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
436 Grant Street, as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore. Durham. and Wagner absent).
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
711 North Gilbert Street.
Bristow said this is a 1928 foursquare in the Goosetown/Horace Mann District. She said the
application is to remove one of the chimneys, although there is a prominent chimney toward the
front of the home that is to remain. Bristow said the chimney to the north is on the back. She
said the proposal is to remove the chimney and patch the roof with materials to match the
existing.
Bristow said the guidelines recommend retaining prominent historic features, but staff feels this
chimney is not prominent. She said that although the chimney on the south is prominent, the
two chimneys are not symmetrical or balanced in any way. Bristow said staff feels that
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 2 of 23
removing the chimney on the north would not adversely impact the historical character of the
home.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 711
North Gilbert Street, as presented in the application. Male Sandell seconded the motion.
The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Durham, and Wanner absent).
610 Ronalds Street
Bristow said this is an application for the demolition of the existing home. She said it is a gabled
L-house that was either built in 1920 or built in 1889 and moved to the site in 1917. Bristow said
that either of the dates would be appropriate for the vernacular style of the home.
Bristow said that prior to the December meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, the
applicant contacted Miklo to inquire about demolition of the existing home and construction of a
new building. Bristow said that a subcommittee of the Historic Preservation Commission then
toured the existing home and did not feel after that visit that the house was a candidate for
demolition.
Bristow stated that the applicant submitted four main documents in support of the demolition: a
letter from the applicant discussing the cat odor, second floor, the foundation, and the intent to
build a new, single-family home; a letter from VJ Engineering about the existing home's
structure; a letter from ServPro about removing the cat odor; and a letter from Johnson County
Public Health about the odor.
Bristow said that staff's opinion about the documents is as follows: the letter from VJ
Engineering does not say that the existing house is structurally unsound. She said it discusses
the house being over -spanned, which would be a common finding in many of the historic
structures because of the differences between current and historic building practices.
Bristow said the applicant's letter discussing the second floor would be a matter for a second
application. She said that currently the home is listed in the survey and on the assessor's site
as a single -story home; there are not building permits to add a second floor. Bristow said the
guidelines recommend against raising the roof on a historic home in order to expand to a
second floor.
Bristow said the letter also dismisses any historic value of the home, even though it is a
contributing property in a historic district. She said that the aluminum siding that is currently
there probably obscures a more historic appearance.
Bristow said that costs submitted by the applicant are not independent costs; they are submitted
from his own company.
Bristow stated that the letter from ServPro lists steps for removing the odor and an estimate on
associated costs.
Bristow said staff's opinion is that the odor removal is the main issue involved with the
demolition, concerning whether or not the home is irretrievable. She said that further
investigation really seems to be needed. Bristow said there might be non-compliance issues
with regard to current building codes, as many homes have these conditions that can be
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 3 of 23
remedied. She said, however, that whether they need to be remedied here and any associated
costs are still unknown.
Bristow said staff feels that if odor removal by ServPro is successful, then any concerns in the
letter by Johnson County Public Health would be eliminated. She said that informal discussions
with other cleaning companies lead staff to believe that more formal information regarding
remediation and the effectiveness of cleaning would be instrumental in evaluating this portion of
the application.
Bristow said staff has also determined that the garage on this property was constructed at a
later date and has no historical value.
Bristow said the application also submitted a proposal for new construction for a two-story
craftsman home with a front porch and a single -story rear extension. She said there would be a
two-story, two -car garage with a second -floor apartment. Bristow showed the site plan. She
said that currently the setback for the new construction does not align with the setback of the
houses on either side.
Bristow said the new construction also has a longer building footprint than either of the
neighboring houses. She said that if it is positioned to align, as the guidelines suggest, it would
be significantly longer than the neighboring houses.
Bristow said the side elevations are rather large. She said staff feels it could be given a more
human scale if perhaps another wide band board was placed along this elevation to align with
the front and back porches.
Bristow stated that 18-inch overhangs are a minimum for craftsman homes. She said the home
at 608 Ronalds, which is smaller than what is being proposed, does have 18-inch overhangs.
Bristow said that, given the scale of the new construction proposed, staff feels that 24-inch
overhangs would be more appropriate for this home.
Bristow said that the brackets and exposed rafter details that are shown are a minimum of what
staff would want to see for craftsman detail. She said staff feels that fitting more craftsman
detail into the front porch roof would also help give a more craftsman like appearance.
Bristow said the garage fits fairly well with the craftsman detailing. She said its scale is more
like a carriage house than a typical garage from this period. Bristow said that the detailing does
fit fairly well except for the window placement on the north elevation, mostly because it is evenly
spaced and lined up and does not really fit with the window detailing on the primary structure.
Bristow said that while the scale of the garage is subordinate to the proposed new
construction/primary building, it is similar in scale to the primary structure next door. She said
the roof height is within a foot height or less of being the same, and the footprint at 608 Ronalds
is roughly the same as the garage footprint. Bristow said that even the footprint of 618 Ronalds,
which is more square with a single -story addition in the back, is similar to the footprint of the
proposed garage.
Agran said that the footprint of the proposed garage is also about the same size as his house
across the alley.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 4 of 23
Bristow said that new information has been submitted that has been provided to the
Commission. She said that today, staff received an e-mail from the applicant with new
information from Service Master that has been provided to Commission members. Bristow said
that some of the information provided includes letters from one of the district residents, a letter
from the architect, and an addendum from VJ Engineering.
Bristow said that the guidelines disallow the demolition of a contributing property in an historic
district unless the owner can demonstrate that it is structurally unsound and irretrievable. She
said that the Commission will consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of
the building.
Bristow stated that if the Commission finds, based on the information submitted, that the house
is structurally unsound and irretrievable, then consideration should be given to the design for the
new house and garage. She added that if a design is approved for the new house and garage,
then a motion approving the demolition of the house and garage may be considered by the
Commission.
Bristow said that if the Commission determines that the application for demolition requires more
information, then a decision may be postponed until the following meeting.
Bristow stated that if the Commission determines that the house is not structurally unsound and
irretrievable, then a motion to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition project
should be considered.
Bristow said that, given the number of conditions proposed on the new construction and
comments raised by the staff, if the Commission needs more time to consider this portion of the
application, it could be deferred to the next meeting.
Bristow said that if the Commission decides to allow the demolition of the existing building and
is satisfied that the overall design and the length to which the proposed building extends into the
lot is appropriate, then a motion may be put forth to approve a certificate of appropriateness with
any conditions.
Oliveira, the owner of the property, said that this project is to replace a house with severe cat
odors. He said that when she left, the previous owner moved out for health reasons, and for
several years it was just occupied by some cats. Oliveira said he knew that before he bought
the building, but his goal was to fix the building to make the structure livable.
Oliveira said he is upset about a couple of issues and thinks there needs to be some points of
clarification on the staff report, which he feels left out some very significant items. He said that
he submitted what Miklo asked him to submit, and then he also got one key point of clarification
from the engineering company. Oliveira said that key point is the ability of his firm to assess the
condition of the house.
Oliveira read from the VJ Engineering letter, "This letter serves as an addendum to my 2-18-15
letter on the same referenced property. My previous letter listed structural deficiencies in the
floor and roof framing. These deficiencies would render the house structurally unsafe by today's
standards and codes." Oliveira said this is a very important letter, because it is the cornerstone
of meeting the requirements for this house to be torn down.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 5 of 23
Oliveira said there are some mitigating factors also with this house, because of the
contamination from having 20+ cats living in it. He said that he has had some different people
look at it. Oliveira said that the firm that he had, Prairie Sun Building Services, which he has no
direct ownership in. That should be corrected. He looked at the cost of trying to fix this thing,
compared to tearing it down to build a new house.
Oliveira said the cost is going to be prohibitive to try to get this cat odor out or cat contamination
out. He said the house is toxic. He said the problem is, no matter what he does, and he called
ServPro 360 and talked to the general manager, because in his opinion, the staff's talked to
them about an estimate without even taking a look at the house Oliveira said the general
manager produced a letter that he gave to the Commission, and they are very concerned about
the cost, because they can't really nail it down. He said that the costs on this building could
range from $50,000 to $100,000. Oliveira said the house is not worth it.
Oliveira said that you have to tear it all out and get this thing up to rode. He said it doesn't make
it feasible. Oliveira said it would be more feasible to let the house sit, and he really doesn't want
to do that.
Oliveira said that the two issues with the contamination of the house and the potential liability
that his company would have if they just put a band aid on this thing, he would ask the City for
indemnification because of the potential health hazards. He said that he has talked to a lot of
people in the industry. Oliveira said there is no way they can make sure that this house is safe.
Oliveira said that in the application he has some things on some of the problems with the feces
and the cat litter. He said that they had a whole room just filled with cat litter in there.
Oliveira said he would like to try to see if we can't get a house that is designed that fits the
neighborhood. He said he has a lot invested in his properties in Iowa City. Oliveira said the
house could be designed to be historic. He said he's trying to get a single-family residence in
there; the last thing he wants to do is have another rental up in the area where he is currently
living.
Oliveira said he is also working on another historic project at 331 Gilbert, which he hopes to
finish soon. He said he has not shied away from difficult projects. He said that this project, he
doesn't think, that staff did an appropriate job in determining that he's met the issues. Oliveira
said they have met the issues, giving the evidentiary report for being structurally unsound. He
said they also made a point of making sure they had letters and supporting documents that the
cost would be prohibitive to try to fix this situation.
Oliveira said that with that, he is opening it up to the committee to say let's try to fix a potential
problem with a nice house in the neighborhood. He said staff has been working with his
architects, and he bore that cost of having a house designed in preparation for this, and we can
work through those issues about the design, and he is willing to work through those issues.
Oliveira said he would answer any questions, unless the Commission had questions for his
architect. Oliveira said that the numbers are the numbers. He said they looked at existing
numbers of trying to fix the house as is. Oliveira said he knows that Miklo says he doesn't like
to raise the roofline, but that house had people living up in the attic for the last 80 years, and it's
not to code and will never pass code. He said he asked Miklo about what if they raised the
roofline, and Miklo told him he did not think it was possible.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 6 of 23
Oliveira stated that at this point, from his position, he thinks the best way to handle the situation
is to tear this house down and put a brand new style house there.
Corcoran said that staff has noted the size of the two -car garage. She asked Oliveira why he
has had this designed with an apartment upstairs. Oliveira responded that he did it just
because the neighborhood allows it. He said that normally, just like out in the Peninsula where
all the craftsman houses were designed with a little flat above. Oliveira said he thought it would
probably make the house a little more sellable.
Oliveira said they are seeing people with aging in place housing, or sometimes their kids come
home. He said there could be a number of reasons.
Corcoran said she noted that there is an elevator in the plans. Oliveira answered that they have
been working on two or three designs. He said they have some other lots where they want to
do similar houses. Oliveira said they have a house that is going on the market, plans are going
up. He said that their houses will all have elevators or shafts for elevators in them, because
they think there is a need for multi -generational housing, where people can live, people his age.
Oliveira said he and his friends are all being faced with the fact that they may have their parents
living in their house or near their house. He said they are all trying to figure out how to do it.
Sandell asked Oliveira when he acquired this house. Oliveira said it was just this past fall,
although he had been talking to the owner for a number of years. He said the owners had been
gone for a good two years, just having caretakers take care of the cats.
Swaim asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item.
McGuire said she is one of the two residents of 618 Ronalds Street. She distributed a summary
of some of the comments that she wanted to make. She wanted to speak first to the high burden
that has to be shown here. She said that on the current record before the Commission, she
does not see that the applicant has made the required showing either for structural soundness
or the irretrievable nature of this.
McGuire said she was surprised to see some new to her historical information about the house.
She said she has been in there a number of times and has come to appreciate that it as a
contributing property given its history. McGuire said, as to the condition, she is not an expert but
if there is any doubt the Commission should not approve the demolition.
McGuire said that as a resident of the North Side Neighborhood since 1978, she wanted to
speak about the proposed replacement building being totally inappropriate and how important
the Commission's decision is tied to, not just the condition of the house, but together they must
consider with the question of what replaces it. She said she was quite shocked when she saw
the plans and how mammoth it is. McGuire said one of the pictures she handed out shows from
the back of her house how the houses currently align: hers and the two to the west of hers.
McGuire said that one can see all the way to Johnson Street from there. She said that the top
right picture is from her second story, looking in the same direction.
McGuire said the one that she thinks is most important to look at is the one in the lower left.
She said it is a photograph looking back into the back yard of the current house at a diagonal
one can see the commons formed by the back yards in the block. McGuire said she respects
that Oliveira is a property owner, but if one looks into the numbers that staff has put together
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 7 of 23
about how far back the new proposed structure would go and how far up the garage would go,
one would really see the massive size of this house.
McGuire said she totally respects, although she does not always agree, but totally respects how
important it is for consideration of design details but really any house can have the proper trim
and windows, but that's not what this is about. McGuire said that we're not talking about facial
consistency here; we're talking about spatial consistency.
McGuire said the staff report mentioned the need to be able to look diagonally. She said that on
her block and the one directly west, all of the houses are arranged more or less in an outside
square. McGuire said that the garages on the alley are all one-story. She said this is not the
kind of property for a carriage house. McGuire said there are houses in the neighborhood that
are appropriate for that, but this is not that.
McGuire said the effect of the way the houses are arranged is that it creates a commons of light
and vista and space such that, even though they are cheek to jowl, there is a feeling of real
spaciousness on the whole block, because they can see unobstructed. She said that this
proposed house on a 40-foot lot with as deep as it would go and as tall as it would be would
effectively cut the south side of the block in half.
McGuire said that is what the Commission needs to consider — is what is the character, not just
facially but spatially of this building. She said there is a certain cohesive nature of the way that
the properties are arranged, and that is what she is asking the Commission to consider.
McGuire said that this is not just about this one property. She said there are quite a number of
properties on the north side one might want to replace with new. McGuire said she worries
about precedence and this mammoth structure on this small lot.
McGuire said there is some irony here about allowing historic properties to become so
deteriorated so that then you can be repaired. She said that she and Anne Burnside were
interested in buying this property. McGuire said that she kept in touch with the previous owner,
because she was interested in this property in terms of downsizing but staying in the
neighborhood.
McGuire said the previous owner called her in early December and said she would be putting
the house on the market in the spring. McGuire said she asked to be kept apprised. She said
the next thing she heard about it was that there was an offer on the house. McGuire said she
was interested but wanted to have the property inspected first.
McGuire said the realtor told her that Oliveira had written a check for $130,000 without any
contingencies. McGuire said that Oliveira then assumed the risk that he is now asking others to
assume by putting the burden of his business decision on the Commission.
McGuire said she tried to buy the property from Oliveira, but that was when the discussion
started that he had a new business plan, which was to build a new house. She said then she
tried to talk to Oliveira about building a smaller house there, and Oliveira said that he in fact he
had been thinking about that and had some plans for smaller houses.
McGuire said that as a very long-term North Side Neighborhood resident, she feels deeply
about what they have turned that neighborhood around to be and the importance of this
decision not to go backwards.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 8 of 23
Burnside said she lives in the house immediately east of this house. Burnside said that when
she saw the plans that were proposed for the building to take the place of this structure, she
was shocked. She said she stood in her yard and tried to imagine what it would be like to have
this thing on the west side.
Burnside said it made her curious as to whether this was a characteristic of the neighborhood
and she just had not seen it. She said she sat down with the assessor's page online and
produced a map. Burnside said where there are red dots, those are the properties that are
listed on the assessor's page as being in excess of 2,000 square feet of total usable area, which
is 500 square feet less than what is being proposed by Oliveira.
Burnside said there are quite a number of houses of that size. She said that when one looks at
the drawing closely, one sees that there is a visual evidence of what McGuire was trying to
describe, which is that all of these larger houses are either on lots much bigger than 40 by 150
and/or they are on a corner. Burnside said that what that does is it provides space. She said
that one can have a big house without overwhelming the neighbors.
Burnside said that if one looks at the blocks along Ronalds Street, especially the 400s, 500s,
and 600s, one will see a pattern. She said that the big houses are on corners, and in the middle
are these little, skinny lots, such as the one being discussed.
Burnside there is one exception, and that is the green dot on the map. She said that 518
Ronalds is the only house in the entire historic district that exceeds 2,000 square feet, as it is
about 2,100 square feet, that is on a 40 by 150 lot. Burnside said she was curious about the
impact of this house and found the following: it has no garage, and it is a house with a front
section and then a back section that is indented and is one story. She said it therefore has a
much smaller footprint and a much smaller side view. Burnside said that on the ground and as
one lives next to it, it is a much smaller structure than what is being proposed.
With regard to the issue of demolition, Burnside stated that she is not a carpenter or engineer
but knows that the house is the age that staff has given. She said that in all likelihood, it is
made of the same material that her house is made out of, which is oak that is close to one
hundred years old. Burnside said that it was oak when it was cut and built, and it hardened to
be like concrete now. She said that the joists may be over -spanned, but she has tried driving
nails into this oak, and it is remarkable.
Burnside said she has lived here for 30 years, and when she moved into this house, there were
no children and no families with children, but there were a number of vacant houses. She said
there were a lot of houses that were old, early 1900s, but no longer being used for anything
except student rental. Burnside said they were run down and were not being maintained. She
said there was already starting to be some of the cookie cutter apartment buildings creeping in,
as the City had not yet amended zoning to prohibit that.
Burnside said that fortunately for everyone, there was a gentleman, who still lives in the district,
who was really concerned about the status of the neighborhood as a whole. Burnside said he
set about buying one of these rundown houses at a time and brought them up to the level of
being safe and habitable. She said that this gentleman/carpenter then turned around and sold
the properties, one by one, to families. Burnside said that over the years, those houses have
remained in the hands of families, and people have put enormous energy and assets into
making these homes really marvelous places.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 9 of 23
Burnside said that the neighborhood is what it is today because someone didn't give up on
these old houses. She asked the Commission to keep that in mind as this decision is made.
Reynolds said she lives at 619 Brown Street. She said that she is nervous about what could
happen at 610 Ronalds Street. Reynolds said she would like to see the house restored if at all
possible. She stated that if a teardown is inevitable, she wants to believe that the right thing
would be done, that something would be built that would blend in with the neighborhood.
Reynolds asked where the responsibility is for the person who allowed a house to get to the
state where tearing it down is even being discussed. She said that the condition of the house is
not caused not by a faulty eave or poor foundation. Reynolds said her concern is that this
house will set a precedent where a property owner will avoid repairs, maintenance, and upkeep
and just simply request to have the house torn down.
Reynolds stated that tearing down a house, particularly in an historic district, is a gamble that
has a direct impact on the builder and developer but also an impact on all of the neighbors who
invest in their homes and in the neighborhood. She said that she is part of a neighborhood, and
her investments in her home don't trump the investments of her neighbors in their homes.
Reynolds said that when she purchased her home in 2006, the house at 610 Ronalds was
there, and she knew what to expect. She said that it was a moderate -sized, single-family home
with a one -car garage. Reynolds said that a tear down with a larger house and apartment over
a garage is now being proposed in its place.
Reynolds stated that she has not been inside the house, so she does not know its condition.
She said she does know that the house was quiet and nondescript. Reynolds said that the
Commission is entrusted with a decision that is going to set a precedent, and whether to tear
down or restore, she hopes that whatever decision is made doesn't divide the neighbors. She
said she likes the neighbors and neighborhood and wants what is best for everyone.
Maas said that she lives at 620 Ronalds Street. She said she agrees with Reynolds that this
was a nondescript, regular small house. Maas said the thing she is most concerned about is
the size of the proposed structure. She said the precedent of tearing down a house in a historic
district is of course a concern, but she recognizes that there are times when something is truly
defunct and broken and should be replaced. Maas said she does not know if that has been
proven in the case of this house.
Maas stated that she is a little nervous about the size of the proposed house in the sense that it
would be a relatively expensive house to buy. Maas said that she has children at Horace Mann
Elementary, and there has been some discussion at the school district level about possibly
closing Horace Mann because of reduced numbers. She said she is very pro young
family/young kids moving into the neighborhood to provide support for the local school.
Myers said she realizes that the demolition is case by case but she is also worried about setting
a precedent. She said that the Commission's decisions provide guidance for the neighborhood
and all the historic districts.
Myers said she became interested in this, because she thinks it might affect any application for
demolition that is based on health and safety concerns and how the phrase structurally unsound
and irretrievable will be looked at and interpreted in the future. She said that this is not
necessarily talking just about cat urine but maybe about other animal problems or radon or lead
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 10 of 23
or asbestos or smoke damage or mold or all these kinds of problems that can come up in old
houses.
Myers said she was happy to read in the guidelines that the issue is not whether the
neighborhood would be better served by a tear down and new construction but is basically
whether the property is unsound and irretrievable. She said there are specific criteria, which are
condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the building. Myers said the architectural
significance is this folk vernacular style, and she didn't find anything saying that that style is any
less important than any other style, for example, craftsman.
Myers said that all of the reports that she read before the meeting say that the building is
structurally sound or, according to another report just submitted, sound like the building is
fixable. She said there was talk about the interior finishes and agreed that they need to be
replaced, according to one of the reports.
Myers said that, according to the 30t" annual report on the historic preservation awards, the
house at 617 Ronalds was stripped to the studs; new HVAC was installed; and it had new,
electrical, plumbing, insulation, kitchen, den, fireplace, deck, cabinets, countertops, doors,
windows, trim, and siding. She said she therefore agrees with the staff report that says that the
work needed on 610 Ronalds could be considered typical renovation work on an historic home
that has seen mistreatment and lack of upkeep.
Myers said the documents referring to extra costs contain one line item of $79,000 that, as she
understands it, is a loss of value after remediation. She said that she looked at the assessor's
report showing that the house sold for $130,000 in December of 2014 with the knowledge of the
cat urine problem. Myers said the house itself is currently assessed at $70,640, and in 2012 it
was assessed at $101,000, and this year the land is assessed at $68;000, which is up $8,000
from last year. She said she thinks about it in terms of the costs needed to remediate the house
and how that all balances out. Myers said that already the house that a few years ago was
$100,000 is now assessed at $70,000 so that there might be some room to invest in the house.
Myers said that if the demolition is denied, she thought that under guideline 2.8, the owner might
be able to apply for a certificate of economic hardship if it turns out that the costs are huge. She
said that at the very least, she does not think there is enough evidence to decide this right now.
Rapson said she lives at 719 North Johnson Street. She said that Oliveira purchased the house
in December 2014. Rapson said the information that now the house is deteriorating to the point
that it needs to be demolished just doesn't seem to jibe with the rest of the things that have
been said.
Rapson asked why the apartment on the back of the garage would be permitted if the property
is zoned for single-family. Miklo replied that in the RS-8 zone, the Medium -Density Single
Family zone, where this is located, accessory apartments are allowed, provided that the
property is owner -occupied. He said that has been in the zoning ordinance since around 2005.
Rapson commented that Oliveira lives across the street and stated that he does not want more
rentals in the neighborhood, yet he is proposing to build a large house that has a rental.
Rapson said she has concerns about whether or not the size of the proposed structures would
be appropriate.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 11 of 23
Rapson said she has lived here for 20 years and works with a contractor. She has gone through
the process and submitted plans to change houses in the neighborhood that were of historic
significance. Rapson said it is a lot of work, and she takes pride in what she has done to
maintain these homes.
Rapson said she noticed ten years ago that someone new had bought a house and was putting
casement windows in it. She said she asked the contractors about putting in windows that did
not match code in the historic district, and the window person said that they told the guy that he
shouldn't put them in — that it wouldn't be compliant — and the owner said that he is from
Chicago and has dealt with City building officials for years and that it wouldn't be a problem —
that he could handle it. Rapson said that turned out not to be the case, because he had to
replace all of those windows. Rapson said she feels like now he is trying to get around code to
get what he wants in the neighborhood. She said it is our history that we need to preserve.
Trimble said that works for Friends of Historic Preservation and also was on the Commission for
several years. She said people know her preferences for saving historic buildings. Trimble said
that in her time on the Commission, the Commission never approved a demolition for a house
that wasn't either ruined by a so-called act of God or by something that was not purposeful.
She said the only two houses for which demolition was approved when she was on the
Commission included a pink rambler that was out of character for the neighborhood on
Governor Street so that Bethel Church, one of our most historically important buildings and
churches in town, could expand. Trimble said the other approved demolition was for a house
that had a fire and was irretrievable.
Trimble reminded the Commission members that cost is not the only factor here; what matters is
whether the building can be saved. Trimble said it was mentioned that some Commission
members had previously visited the building. She said she would be interested in hearing their
comments during discussion of the application.
Rust said that he has lived at 915 Bloomington Street since the 1990s and has lived 31 years on
the north side of the City. He said he agrees with what the last speaker said about
irretrievability concerns for this building. Rust said he also agrees with the concerns about the
size of the proposed building. He said that on the north side of Bloomington Street, Oliveira is
building a house to the east of his that looks to be much more in scale with the houses that exist
in that part of the City. He urged reconsideration of the size of this project to take the
surrounding properties into account.
Carlson said he does not live in this neighborhood but lives at 1122 Penkridge. He said
Oliveira's house at 617 Ronalds was mentioned. Carlson said that when Oliveira bought the
property, he came down and talked to him and worked with him on repairing it. Carlson said
that Oliveira planned to do on this house what he did at 617 Ronalds. Carlson said they did
some research on the cat urine issue and found out that what one normally does is encapsulate
it. He said that everything is torn out and what is left is encapsulated. Carlson said the problem
is that encapsulation doesn't last. He said that it stays there, is a rigid material, included on
wood.
Carlson said that wood takes on moisture in the summer in Iowa, and in the winter it loses
moisture. He said that it moves and the encapsulate breaks. Carlson said that what is in the
wood is going to come back out and could make those living in the house sick.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 12 of 23
Carlson said that the second floor of this house has always been occupied. He said there is
only four feet seven inches of headroom at the top of the stairs, and he had to get on his knees
to make the second floor. Carlson said that the windows on the second floor are about 24
inches wide and about three feet tall, way smaller than what a fireman with a backpack could
do.
Carlson said one can say that the door at the bottom of the stairs will be closed and no one will
use the second floor. He said that is not realistic, however, because if someone buys the
house, about half of the living space of the house is on the second floor. Carlson said that the
only thing you have to provide access to the attic and to the roof for fire purposes; it's part of the
building code.
Carlson said that the first floor and the second floor are the same. He said they could possibly
be rebuilt, but the problem is, how they rebuild to make sure that in the future, no one gets sick
from what is left from the cats.
Carlson said that Oliveira did not put the cats there. He said that this is not one of those cases
where a landlord turned the house over to the students and turned it over to them and did no
maintenance and then said the house is in no shape so it has to be torn down. Carlson said
that Oliveira bought it with the intent of remodeling it by doing the exact same thing as was done
to 617 Ronalds and then selling it for a single family to move back in to the neighborhood. He
said that Oliveira did not want students renting across the street.
Carlson said the reason there is an apartment above the garage is simply to help the family
afford it. He said that the apartment could be used for family members or rented out for income.
Carlson said that it does not have to be there, but it decreases the burden on whomever
eventually buys the house.
Oliveira thanked the Carlson Design Team for helping him on a significant amount of projects in
Iowa City. He said that 617 Ronalds was a project that they purchased, started restoring,
received some bad advice on, ended up having to redo the windows to get it right. They worked
with Carlson's firm to get all the compliance levels in place.
Oliveira said that the plus of remodeling that house was significant. He said the issue on 610
Ronalds is that they deem it structurally unsound, as in the VJ Engineering report and the
addendum letter about the structural integrity.
Oliveira said that costs do play a role here. He said that Miklo clearly told him that he needed
to put together some cost analysis — where they think they would be and if it is cost prohibitive
to make this work. Oliveira said that if it gets to the point where it seems like this will not work,
he doesn't know what they will do with the property, but it could be sitting there for many years.
Oliveira asked the Commission to take a look at the facts that they presented in the application
to tear this thing down. He said they could modify to make the building smaller. Oliveira said
they are one foot off the front, the site lines and said they are eight or nine feet off from the other
houses in the back.
Oliveira said they could shorten the house up and meet the Commission requirements and
concerns of the neighbors. He said that for the time being, they need to have a vote on whether
they can tear the house down. Shaw said they have met the burden of proof, and the letter from
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 13 of 23
VJ Engineering has met the code requirement. He said they have also presented the cost
analysis, and it is going to be prohibitive.
Oliveira said they also have a letter that Carlson wrote as a professional engineer who has
worked in Iowa City for over 20 years. He said there is a letter to Doug Boothroy that was
supposed to be included in the packet to address the health issues. Swaim said that it was in
the packet.
Oliveira said those are the issues. He said that once they move past that, they can come back
and work to size the house down and meet the concerns of the neighbors. Oliveira said they
will have to work out the garage design.
Oliveira said that the current structure as is a health hazard. He said it is irretrievable. Oliveira
said they have met the requirements, and it needs to be torn down.
Swaim said that Trimble had asked those who had visited the house to give their thoughts:
Ackerson, Agran, and Michaud.
Ackerson said he expected, based on why they were being asked to go in there, that it would be
a lot worse than it was. He said his impression of the house was that it was not a really great
house in lots of ways. Ackerson said it seemed that one room in particular smelled a lot more
strongly than anywhere else. He said he did not find that he had any strong reaction other than
it smelled like a house that had cats in it.
Michaud said the heat was running, and the house was totally sealed up when they visited.
She said that she was really looking for structural flaws, because that would be the premise for
demolishing. She said she was really surprised. Michaud said it was in good condition. She
said it had drywall, and obviously drywall can be replaced.
Michaud said that the heating system was updated, and she thought it also had air conditioning.
She said that the siding was in good shape, but the roof needs to be replaced. Michaud said
that it is an old house, but she thought the floors had been refinished in the past ten or 20 years.
She said that the room with cat litter would have to be really stripped down and the floor
replaced.
Michaud said she was surprised when she went in the basement. She said that it looked very
plumb. Michaud said there was a high ceiling in the basement, and it had been occupied at one
point. She said there was paneling on the walls, but it did not seem like water damage was an
issue. Michaud said she smelled a faint odor of cat, even though the house was entirely closed
up.
Michaud said it seemed like the problem was not structural, but she thought the inside would
have to be renovated. She said that anything that was permeated with cat urine would take
serious gutting.
Michaud said there is certainly a wave of older buildings being torn down for high density.
Because of high -density buildings going up next to her own house, she understands the
concerns about gardens and sense of space.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 14 of 23
Michaud said that as far as precedent goes, in the late 90s there was a house on Summit Street
that was probably the largest on the block. She said there was a person with disabilities living in
it, and they proposed to add a wing on the back to accommodate his needs. Michaud said there
were already 36-inch doors, various ramps, etc. She said the neighbors were upset, because
the size of the proposed addition would have blocked the sense of commons or openness of the
backyards. Michaud said that was not approved, because it did not conform to the spacing and
massing setbacks of the neighborhood.
Michaud said it is her impression that if her 1890s house was damaged so severely that it had
to be taken down, it could not be replaced with anything higher or with a larger footprint. She
said she has never heard that refuted, and it is constricting what she can do with her house,
even though there is a CB-2 zone right behind it.
Agran said he also went through the house. He said he did not notice a strong cat odor, but it
was very cold that day, even with the furnace on. Agran said his family used to have a cat, so
he is probably not susceptible to cat odor in general.
Agran said he is not a structural engineer and was not about to pass judgment on whether the
building/structure itself is unsafe. He said that if the Commission is expected to pass judgment
on very technical issues, it is his feeling that it needs to somehow get its own counsel to guide
the Commission on what things to look for. Agran said that otherwise, it seems that the
Commission members will get themselves into a situation where they have experts versus
experts and will be forced to make judgments that they have neither the training nor the
expertise to make.
Swaim stated that there are two issues: the demolition permit and the proposed replacement.
She asked for other thoughts.
Ackerson said, based on the addendum to the VJ Engineering report, that the previous report
did not really indicate that the house was structurally unsound, but the addendum does say that,
based on the previous report, the deficiencies would render the house structurally unsafe by
today's codes and standards. He said that if one goes into any house in the entire north side
neighborhood and sees that there is undersized framing, that would be the case in most of the
houses. Ackerson said he felt less confident about the decision until he saw the addendum
stating the deficiencies that make the building structurally unsafe. He said that saying that
because a house was built to a different code or standard allows it to be torn down, that is what
the addendum says to him.
Ackerson said that is what the addendum says to him, and he said he is concerned about that,
especially because the deficiencies don't include the foundation. He said that a lot of
foundations in this neighborhood are being redone. Ackerson said that this is just floor and roof
framing, which is highly accessible. He said if the Commission approves this based on just the
addendum, they would be hard-pressed to not approve tearing down any house in the entire
district.
Bristow said that she had a conversation with building inspector Terry Goordt regarding the idea
of the unsafe over -spanned structure discussed by VJ Engineering. Bristow said that Goordt
basically reiterated the point that pretty much most if not all of the historic properties would be
considered over -spanned by today's building codes.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 15 of 23
Michaud said that yet the three cottages have been standing for about 170 years. Ackerson
said there are better standards now to build houses. He said his concern is just with the
particular statement about the specific things that they are saying render it structurally unsound.
Miklo said that the guidelines state that before a demolition permit is approved, the replacement
building also has to be approved. He advised the Commission to come to a consensus as to
whether the burden of showing that the house is structurally unsound and irretrievable has been
met. Miklo said that if the Commission feels that informally, then it can move on to the next
question. He said the Commission actually does not vote on the demolition until it is satisfied
with the design for the new structure.
Miklo said the staff report gives the Commission some direction. He said that if the Commission
finds that it is not satisfied that the information presented shows the building to be structurally
unsound and irretrievable, it could vote the demolition down. Miklo said the Commission could
defer it to ask for more information., in which case the City would have to hire a consultant or
third party to look at this independently. He said that the Commission may be satisfied that the
information presented is sufficient to allow the demolition of the house. Miklo said the
Commission should not take a vote on that until it is also satisfied with the design of the new
house.
Michaud asked if it is accurate that one cannot replace an historic house with one that has a
larger footprint or a greater height. Miklo said that the guidelines do not say that explicitly,
although there may be some zoning issues in Michaud's case in terms of the percent of the
footprint to the lot area.
Corcoran said she is concerned about the length of the replacement house, the size and scope
of it, and the garage. She said that this is a historic area. Corcoran said she looked at the
house several times from the back and front and could not say for certain if there is an exact
setback that is met all along these streets.
Corcoran said that here the applicant did not go with the setback of the two houses on either
side. She asked, if this were approved and the owner wanted to build this, would he have to go
to the Board of Adjustment and get a special exception to not meet the setback in this area.
Corcoran asked what the laws are.
Miklo said that the current setback is only 15 feet in the RS-8 zone. He said that if more than
50% of the houses on the block are set back more than 15 feet, then the house has to be set
back the average of the two houses on either side. Miklo said he believes that means that it
would have to be set back to fall back between 608 and 618. He said that refers to the front of
the porch. Miklo said he was not 100% certain of that. He said it is about a foot or two off, so it
would not be difficult to move it back farther.
Corcoran asked Oliveira if he had spoken to a lawyer about the requirements. Oliveira
answered that he hired a professional architect to deal with the building codes.
Oliveira said they submitted the plans to Miklo's department, and they came back with many,
many requests for changes to the plan, so they were taking those one by one, going through
them to get to this point to even have a plan. He asked how far away they are from where the
other houses on the block are.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 16 of 23
Corcoran said she would like to see where the other houses are before making some kind of
determination. Miklo said that before a building permit is issued, this would have to comply with
the setback averaging rule, if it does apply in this case.
Miklo read from the ordinance that it is where at least 50% of the lots along the frontage have
been developed, and all of these developed lots are occupied by principal buildings that are
located at least five feet further from the street than the required front setback, the required front
setback along the frontage is increased to the equivalent of the setback building closest to the
street. He said it is not certain that would apply here, because he did not think these are 20 feet
back. Miklo said that as long as they are between 15 but less than 20.
Carlson said they went back and checked the distances and setbacks along the block. He said
they thought they were compliant with the zoning ordinance on that. Carlson said that if it is
thought that the house would be better slid back a little bit so that the porch lines up, then they
would be glad to do that.
Carlson said that is not the primary issue. He said they made a number of revisions to this
house based on comments from staff, but he does not remember setback being one of them
previously. Carlson said that if it needs to be moved back a foot or two so that it balances with
the house on either side to be appropriate that is not a problem.
Corcoran asked for the square footage of the replacement house as designed. Carlson said it
would be about 2,500 square feet. Corcoran asked for the size of the garage. Michaud said it
is 720 square feet. Carlson said the apartment would be 650 square feet, which is the size the
City ordinance allows for an accessory apartment above a garage.
To clarify, Miklo said that the zoning code does not require the building to be set back further,
but the Historic Preservation Handbook guidelines do. He said that the building could not stick
out farther than 608, so it would have to be moved back a foot or two.
Michaud asked if there is a setback requirement to conform to the rest of the block for the back.
Miklo replied that the setback in the back is 20 feet from the alley for a principal structure, and
then one would refer to the guidelines regarding mass and scale. He said it is not a hard and
fast rule but is more consistency with the neighborhood that would be the consideration. Miklo
said it is a judgment call on the part of the Commission.
Michaud said that the houses adjacent to this property are one and one-half story houses.
Bristow stated that 608 is a one and one-half story house, and 618 is a two-story house. Miklo
said that 608 was built as a single-family home and was converted to a duplex.
Ackerson said this has to do with the massing of the homes rather than the occupancy. He said
it sounds like, from what was pointed out earlier, that the size of the house as indicated in the
plans would be the anomaly in that central block in terms of all the other back yards so it would
make sense for it to be smaller based on the guidelines.
Swaim said that one of the tenets of preservation is sympathetic infill. She said it is the idea of
blending in with the surroundings in terms of mass, scale, size, and setback.
Swaim said that if the Commission does not approve on the proposed replacement, then it
cannot vote on the demolition. Agran said it seems that the Commission cannot approve the
demolition permit unless there is an acceptable replacement house.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 17 of 23
Michaud said, regarding the garage, that in this case there will be a very narrow back yard, and
there are not comparably -sized garages adjacent to this. She said the scale is really up a
notch, and little things are adding up, such as the ceiling height of nine feet instead of eight.
Michaud said she would prefer to see a second floor put on the original structure.
Corcoran said she agreed with the speakers who said this is a very important decision. She
said there will be a precedent set here. Corcoran said she believes she has sufficient
information to make a decision and feels that the facts presented by the applicant do not
convince her that the property is actually structurally unsound and irretrievable. She said she
would vote against approving demolition.
Corcoran said she does not think the existing structure merits and has met the legal burden that
needs to be met. She said that obviously she does not approve of what is being proposed as a
replacement at all. Corcoran said that she thinks a two -car garage is reasonable, but this is
piling on. She said she does not look at the Commission's role as a way to help buyers of
properties pay for their investment or make money off of it. Corcoran said the Commission's job
is to protect the historic fabric of the City.
Corcoran said this is a small lot. She said that right in the middle of the block, the lot is long and
lean, and the plans for the proposed house are for something that is just too massive and too
big. Corcoran asked about the square footage of the current house. Burnside said the
assessor's website has the total living area at 1,211.
Corcoran said Oliveira is proposing a house that is 2,500 square feet, so more than twice the
size of the current structure, as well as a two -car garage of 720 square feet and a 650-square-
foot apartment above that.
Agran asked if the total living area is a combination of the basement, first floor, and second
floor. He said that figure of 1,211 sounds way too large for the existing house. Michaud said
the footprint of the existing house is not 1,200.
Bristow said that since the assessor's site discusses the house as a single -story home and
typically, basements are not included in the square footage, she would assume that the 1,200
square feet is just the single, first floor. Agran replied that the figure does not seem possible.
Shaw said he is confused by the process. He said that if one takes an informal poll that finds
that the Commission does not support demolition, there does not need to be any of this
discussion about the replacement house.
Corcoran said she was not taking an informal poll. She said that part of the purpose of this is to
make a legal record. Corcoran said that if the Commission would vote in such a way that
Oliveira wanted to go to court, the Commission would want to make sure that all of the
proceedings reflect what truly happened. Corcoran said this is rather convoluted, because it is
not a one-shot deal.
Shaw said that if there is not support on the Commission to allow demolition, does any of the
discussion about the proposed replacement house have to take place. Swaim asked if there is
a sense that the Commission might approve the proposed demolition. She added that she
would not approve demolition, because she does not believe the house is irretrievable nor
structurally unsound.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 18 of 23
Litton said he would not approve demolition either and also believes the scale of the proposed
house is way off for the neighborhood.
Baker said she also would not approve demolition. She stated that she does not believe the
Commission has been given evidence to confirm that the building is irreparable and
irretrievable. Baker said the Commission has had houses come before it in worse condition
than this one: specifically, a house on Governor Street that had its entire roof blown off to leave
it exposed to the elements. She said that the Commission did not approve a demolition permit
for that house, and it has been rebuilt and has been occupied and is fine.
Baker agreed with the comment that if the Commission goes by the addendum, a demolition
permit could be requested for every single house in an historic district under the premise that
under today's code it would be considered structurally unsound. She said she would be against
approving a demolition permit.
Agran said he remains uncertain. He said there is an opinion that the building is structurally
unsound. Agran said he is unwilling to refuse to acknowledge the opinion that was presented.
He said that the walls in the basement are paneled, so he could not see the foundation. Male
Ackerson said the structural engineer had indicated in the report that he had pulled off the
panels to check the walls.
Baker said she would need more evidence to consider approving a demolition permit, because
she has not yet heard enough to make that decision. Agran said he agreed.
Ackerson said his opinion is similar to that. He said that, based on the addendum that Oliveira
gave as the chief piece of evidence that is supposed to indicate that the house should be torn
down, he would feel very uncomfortable setting such a precedent. Ackerson said he would
need more evidence that the house is anything but old.
Michaud said she agreed with the comments. She said the Commission has approved
significant two-story additions on houses, as long as they were inset by 18 inches.
Bristow said the assessor's website shows 976 square feet on the first floor. Miklo said the
second floor, which is an attic that was refinished at some point with paneling, is 672 square
feet. He said if the attic is included it would be more than 1,200 square feet, but it really is an
attic that was finished off; it is not considered habitable space.
Myers asked, if this Commission wants to deny a certificate of appropriateness, does it have to
consider the new house. She said isn't that only if they want to approve the certificate then it
first has to look at the proposed house. Miklo confirmed this.
MOTION: Corcoran moved that the Commission, having determined that the house is
structurally unsound and irretrievable, approve a certificate of appropriate for the
demolition of the property at 610 Ronalds Street. Ackerson seconded the motion. The
motion failed on a vote of 0-8 (Clore, Durham, and Wapner absent).
Swaim said the certificate of appropriateness is therefore denied. She thanked those present
for their input.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 19 of 23
Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review.
228 South Summit.
Bristow said this was a certificate of no material effect for the replacement of the rubber roof
with a comparable membrane roof at 228 South Summit Street, a landmark building.
125 East College Street.
Bristow said there was a certificate of no material effect for various repairs at 125 East College
Street, including masonry repairs, repairs to wood trim and doors, repairs to the cornice, and
repairs to the roof. She said that all of this was reviewed so that it would follow the Secretary of
the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation.
Minor Review — Preapproved Item — Staff Review.
223 South Dodge Street.
Bristow said this was a minor review to replace some heavily deteriorated windows at 223 South
Dodge Street with wood windows that will match the trim and detailing on the existing windows.
She said it will help consolidate the previously replaced windows so that they will all match.
Miklo pointed out in a photograph that one can actually see that this window had at one point
been patched with putty, with some metal in there and duct tape over it. He said that compared
to other windows that have been denied replacement, these showed some severe deterioration.
728 Washington Street.
Miklo said that all of the windows on this house were replaced sometime after 1996 with vinyl
replacement windows, and all of them are being replaced again. Miklo said that physically they
looked good from the outside but would jam and would not open or close properly. The
residents reported that the replacement windows were drafty. He said this illustrates the
importance of preserving historic windows when possible, because the useful life of
replacement windows is relatively short.
Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff Review
631 North Dodge Street.
Miklo said this application was to replace the asphalt roof on this house with either asphalt or a
metal roof. He said that currently building permits are not required for roof replacement unless
the sheathing is being replaced underneath.
Miklo said the owner in this case is very cognizant of the history of this small Goosetown
cottage and wanted to make sure that what he is doing in the future complies with the
guidelines. He said the owner also did not want to take a chance that once the sheathing was
off that it would need to be replaced. Miklo said a certificate was approved to use either a
standing seam metal roof or architectural asphalt shingles that mimic historic shingles.
DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN PRIORITIES AND ANNUAL WORK
PROGRAM:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 20 of 23
Corcoran thanked the outgoing intern, Bailey McClellan, who is graduating.
Corcoran said the subcommittee put together a list of potential landmark properties, after she
and Trimble looked through a number of the surveys. She said they tried to put them in order of
priority.
Corcoran said they identified properties that merited protection because they are historic and
meet either the local or national standards as historic properties. She said there are 25 to 30
properties.
Miklo said the goal is to identify buildings for which the property owners would be approached to
designate as landmarks. He said if the Commission felt strongly about a property, it could take
steps to designate it as a landmark without the owner's consent. Miklo said the idea is to
address concerns raised by the Dubuque Street cottages so that the Commission identifies
buildings proactively and not when a demolition permit is being sought. He stated that all of the
properties are outside of historic and conservation districts.
Corcoran said the properties are not currently protected in any way. She said they especially
focused on the north of downtown area from around Market Street north, because there seems
to be a number of areas there that are vulnerable to tear downs.
Swaim said the south side was not part of this endeavor, because the survey is close to being
done but is not done.
Miklo showed photographs of the properties. Corcoran discussed the reasoning behind
including each of the properties on the list.
Miklo suggested the same subcommittee or other volunteers begin approaching property
owners to see if they would be receptive to designating these. He said that those in favor would
be the easy ones, and those for which the owners object would require some decision as to
whether to move forward.
Miklo said the history on some properties is not fully recorded, so there would need to be a little
bit more research. He said that perhaps Friends of Historic Preservation would help with that.
Miklo said he thought there was enough information to approach owners but not always enough
to approach the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council.
Miklo said there are some zoning incentives for landmark properties. Swaim suggested having
a fact sheet to give property owners information.
Swaim said she feels that the properties closer to the central business district are probably more
of a priority than some of the others.
Ackerson said that the property on Cedar Street has an owner who wants to sell in the near
future. He said he mentions it because it may be appropriate to be thinking about what
incentives would be available now. Ackerson said there is a lot of property with the house.
In terms of further development of that property, Miklo stated that it would require some sort of
zoning approvals for anything other than a single-family house. He said there are some zoning
incentives that, for preserving historic houses, one can do some other things, such as condos,
for other parts of the property.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 21 of 23
Swaim said that since the goal is to be proactive, that might be a property to start on now, since
the owner plans to sell the property. She said the context of the house is still there, because
there are no surrounding properties. The consensus of the Commission was to first look at the
house on Cedar Street and six other houses near the Central Business District.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 9 2015:
MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the April 9, 2015 Historic Preservation
Commission meeting, as written. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote
of 8-0 (Clore Durham, and Wanner absent).
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
Permits for roofs and doors update
Swaim said this will need to be presented to the Board of Appeals and City Council. She said
she could not attend the Tuesday meeting coming up and asked for a volunteer to attend.
Miklo said that several months ago, the Commission asked staff to look at amendments to the
building code to require building permits for roof changes in historic and conservation districts.
He said that Iowa City does not require building permits for roofs, so they are overlooked in
historic districts.
Miklo said the Commission has had a policy of approving changing metal roofs from metal to
asphalt if the asphalt looks like a shingle roof. He said that one reason for that is because a lot
of the roofs originally were wood shakes and then were later covered with metal.
Miklo said there are good examples of standing seam metal roofs. He said there are metal
roofs that imitate shingles pretty well, but not all metal roofs are created equal. Miklo said that
recently there have been issues where these agricultural -type roofs are being applied, even in
historic districts. He said that the Secretary of the Interior has indicated that some of these
roofs would even make the buildings ineligible for the National Register. Miklo showed some
examples.
Miklo said staff has proposed some amendments to the building code but only for historic
districts, not conservation districts. He said the proposal is to require building permits for
reroofing landmark buildings and buildings in historic districts. Miklo said this would be
consistent with what other cities in Iowa do for historic districts.
Miklo stated that before that can occur, the Board of Appeals, which oversees the building code,
makes a recommendation to the City Council. He said that the Homebuilders Association has
indicated that it will object to the changes. He said the Board of Appeals will consider this next
Monday, May 18. Miklo said that Bristow may be attending, but it would be good to have a
Commission member attend to make the case to the Board of Appeals.
Miklo said staff has also learned recently that the Building Department is not requiring permits
for doors. He said that doors are an important element of most historic buildings and they are
referenced in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook and the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards. Miklo said the proposal is to require a permit for street -facing doors for landmarks
and historic districts.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 14, 2015
Page 22 of 23
Corcoran volunteered to attend the Board of Appeals meeting and the City Council meeting.
Michaud also volunteered to attend.
Michaud asked to put on the agenda for a future meeting discussion of finding a way to reuse
historic buildings. She described a plan by a dentist to allow her to purchase neighboring
properties and connect to them in the back if they meet certain conditions, in order to stabilize
certain areas.
Swaim asked if a memorandum regarding potential building code amendments would need to
be produced for the City Council meeting, and Miklo said it would be beneficial.
Butler House Update.
Miklo said this is a stone house on North Dubuque Street that was built by the operator of the
river ferry crossing. He said that the City acquired when it purchased property for the water plant
and mothballed it and boarded it up. Miklo said there has been recent interest in having the City
do something with it. He said a group of people will be visiting the house on May 21 at 10 a.m.
if anyone is interested. Miklo said that up to four Commission members may attend, and those
attending will meet at City Hall.
634 South Lucas Street.
Miklo stated that this house in a conservation district burned; the roof burned off and three sides
burned. He said that because it was a hazardous situation, the building official required that it
be demolished even though it was in a conservation district, and Miklo wanted to make the
Commission aware of that.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
r
x®
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
M
N
r
x
x®
x
x®
x
x
x
x
iv
r
x
x
x
x
x
x®
x
x
x
N
x
x
x
wx
x
x
x
x
x
w
`o
r
x
o
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
r
X
x
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
r
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x®
x
v
w
w
w
x®
x®
d®
x
x
x
x
o
N
TXX
x
x
x
X
x
x
w
r
®o
1-
m
co
m
uj a
oa
o`a
a>
w
oa
oa
as
'w
a>
w
os
W W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
Q
W
Q
Q
Z
W
W
J
Q
W
d
2
Q
Ly
Q
®
J
LL
W
N
2
awc
®
Q
W
V
®
V
Q
CD
IL¢
f7
Q
V
0
w
'
II II
Q
Q
m
V
®
J
N
7
x0
I