The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-12-2015 Historic Preservation CommissionIowa City Historic Preservation Commission w] �� t � Thursday C,)' November 12, 2015, 4 ,� flit n ti��, 1 5:30 p.m, 4 C Y 'lll, ...�•� e•n 7 n r t' V >� �tl�llfS I t• e w Salfle Meeting Room A Recreation Center 220 S. Gilbert Street F IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, November 12, 2015 Recreation Center, 220 South Gilbert Street Room A 5:30 p.m. A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 1050 Woodlawn Avenue — Woodlawn Historic District (deck construction project) 2. 1009 E College Street— East College Street Historic District (roof replacement, siding and chimney repair, built-in gutter removal) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 1. 308 Ronalds Street — Northside Historic District (porch roof and gutter elastomeric coating) 2. 620 Ronalds Street —Brown Street Historic District (asphalt roof replacement) 3. 610 Ronalds Street —Brown Street Historic District (asphalt roof replacement) 4. 525 South Lucas — Govemor-Lucas Street Conservation District (soffit and roof repair and rear porch rebuild- certificate includes work from 2007 COA that was completed incorrectly) 5. 1115 Sheridan Avenue —Longfellow Historic District (porch repair and reconstruction) Minor Review — preapproved item — Staff review 1. 628 North Johnson Street —Brown Street Historic District (front and side door replacement, front and rear porch handrail replacement) 2. 615 South Governor Street— Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District (deck and railing replacement project F) Discussion of Historic Preservation Awards ]Nominations for Awards G) Consideration of Minutes for October 8, 2015 H) Adjournment Staff Report November 3, 2015 Historic Review for 1050 Woodlawtt Avenue District: Woodlawn Mstoric District Classification: Non -Contributing The applicant, Tom Gartland, is requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 1050 Woodlawn Avenue, a Non -Contributing property in the Woodlawn Historic District. The project consists of the addition of a deck on the south side of the house and steps down the hillside to the lower grade behind the house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa CiryHistoricPresemadon GuideAnesforAlrefatrons 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.14 Wood 5.0 Guidelines forAd&Vons 5.2 Decks and Ramps StalfCornments This house is a singlestoryranch style house with a hipped roof constructed between 1950 and 1957. The house is built into the hillside as it slopes down to Ralston Creek. While the house is not contributing to the Woodlawn Historic District and was non -historic at the time of its site survey, the house could now be considered an example of a historic 1950's ranch home and has been well-preserved in this form. In 1996 the Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the south east comer of the house including a deck and railing. It appears that this project was not completed. In 2005, the Commission approved an addition on the south east comer, the removal of a planter on the southwest comer, the addition of the current south entry door and deck, and a door and window replacement project. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck on the south west comer, and rebuild it about 8 feet wide. The new deck would step down the hill to the lower grade behind the house. The railing would match the existing metal railing with wood posts. The wood posts, metal railing, and deck structure would be painted to match the house. The deck flooring material would be Trex composite to match the existing decking. The guidelines recommend constructing a deck on the rear of a property and inset 8 inches. The guidelines do not allow deck construction between the street and the street -facing facade if it detracts from the neighborhood or is not compatible with the architectural style of the existing building. New balustrades and handrails should be constructed with a style that is consistent with the style of the house. Top and bottom rails should be at least 2 inches in thickness. Wrought iron cannot be used unless it is part of the historic design. Deck attachment to the house should not damage historic exterior walls or other materials. In 4.14 Wood, the guidelines state that composite materials such as Trex, are appropriate on a case -by -case basis. In Staff s opinion, while this house is not a contributing structure for the Woodlawn District it has a highly distinct architectural style that has been well -maintained through one or two additions. For fits reason, staff finds that it is appropriate for the proposed deck project to be evaluated in relationship to the style of the house instead of the style of the district or the general guidelines. For instance, the proposed handrail, which would match the existing rail, would be more appropriate for the modern architecture than the guideline's specified requirement of rails that are 2 inches thick. Similarly, the iron railing fits the proportions, style, and materiality of the structure. Painting the deck structure to blend with the house is appropriate and will help the deck fit with the house and the landscaping. Using Tres on this project for the flooring would not detract from the character of the house. The proposed deck will be bunt on the south side of the house, which is adjacent to the toad. Staff finds that the while the location does not meet the recommended guidelines, for this particular property the location will not detract from the neighborhood. The house is set on a hillside below most of the rest of the neighborhood, The deck would also step down the hill and would be consistent with the style of the house. Staff finds that an exception for the deck location is appropriate for this project because of proposed ratting style and the orientation of the house on the site and its relationship to the neighborhood. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1050 Woodlawn as presented in the staff report. Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook which is available in the Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Fall or online at: www.icgov,orgWhandbook The HPC does comply with all Wilding permit. For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect Q Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediatereview ❑ Minor review not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes, Work must appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates, Property Owner/Applicant Information (Fleece check primary contact gorson) ❑ Property Owner Name: Email: qa 43V + . , Address; �0 5W0 o - l ate► v City: T o,-J -'NCNA ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name. Email: PhoncNunqbcr7Pl)32 State: ty rr I• Phone Numb' Address:: �I 55 `_ City: �` tit State: 7rL-A� Project Information Address: Use of Property: UuKeel (Jof,,,4 e U � Date Constructed (if known): F�L Historic Designation (Maps pre located In Me Historic I'Mmation Handbook) Q This Property is a local historic landmark. OR hK This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District Woodlawn Historic District Within the district, this Property is classified as: ❑ Contributing W Noncontributing Zip Code: �*a —Ca clymi I. C( Zip Code: 5904 j ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Sheet Conservation District ❑ Gooseiown / Horace Mann Conservation District ❑ Govemor-Lucas Street Conservation District 13 Nonhiswric 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. jAddition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, eck, [eJ ❑ Building Elevations ❑ FloorPlans ❑ Photographs ❑ ProductInformation ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product information ❑ Other Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Materials to heflJsed: a �V •vd�d1 C_ .(_/tl� 1� vY. Y" v Exterior Appearance Changes: i;spnsiapp far woricn"ew.doe ,;,,af]a F/d4H( �NC� _ .Z X $ •7'r�E4T�1y i.cl C9/Atr7 _ CA PA P®s •7-6 Foor.,./4tSg",r I .J Ph 9A,) L / tJ ' OA1 Pu5 ! T NC-1 ,%o15T If�✓�J E 5 aN .+L-L forsr J I t I I I t Failing detail F PF .4 is y wi/� • pa ZL lji 41 Y_ A ^T , Sr ! r t4 IIS'a'I' �r•� R -, � . .. � � ��_.y .tom � � i - .1�. sow Staff Report November 5, 2015 Historic Review for 1009 East College Street District East College Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Andy Litton, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition, re-rooftn& and repair project at 1009 East College Street, a Contributing property in the East College Street Historic District. The project consists of replacing the standing seam roofing with asphalt shingles, tuck -pointing the clriuwey, replacing damaged siding and removing the built-in gutters and replacing them with external gutters. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.2 Chimneys 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.8 Masonry 4.11 Siding 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition Tl Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Staff Comments Built before 1900, 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. At the time of the original survey, the house had replacement shingle siding. The survey stated that if the shingle siding was removed the house should be considered an individually eligible property. Father this year, the Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a window replacement and resizing over the side porch. The applicant is proposing to remove the standing seam metal roof and the asphalt shingles over the bay projections and replace them with Malarkey Legacy 50-ye2r hail proof shingle in a dark wood brown car dark gray color. Ice Guard would be applied to the roof transition above the roof projections. Siding would he replaced over the ice guard. The chimney would be tuck -pointed to match the existing. In addition, the applicant proposes to remove the built-in gutters and associated crown molding to create a smooth fascia for the installation of K-style gutters. The guidelines recommend repairing chimneys by removing deteriorated mortar by hand and re -pointing with mortar that is similar in hardness and color to the original mortar. Metal roofs should be maintained rather than replacing them but they can be replaced with asphalt shingles if necessary. Deteriorated wood siding may be replaced with wood or cement board and painted to match the existing siding. Removing historic trim is disallowed. Original built-in gutters should be repaired and EPDM is an economical material replacement for the original tin. Removal of built-in gutters may be considered on a case -by -case basis if documentation is provided to establish evidence of need. The guidelines disallow the removal of any historic architectural feature, such as a porch, chimney, bay window, dormer, brackets, or decorative trim that is significant to the architectural character and style of the building. In Staff's• opinion, the proposed roof replacement is an acceptable resolution for the deteriorated standing - seam roof. It is likely that the house originally had wood shake shingles and asphalt shingles are considered an appropriate replacement for them. Tuck pointing the existing chimney is also an appropriate repair. Replacing siding with wood or cement board as needed is also appropriate. Siding was approved on the project earlier this year, The application of ice guard under the siding is appropriate as long as it is covered with siding. Similarly, the ice guard can extend over the roof edge as long as the lap is no more than the existing metal trim. Staff finds that these portions of the application me appropriate. Staff finds the removal of the built-in gutters and crown molding and their replacement with smooth fascia and k-style gutters inappropriate and not in litre with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. The cornice returns and built-in gutters are one of the most visually evident hallmarks of the Greek Revival style. At the time of the site survey, the house could have been considered individually eligible, or a key property, if the shingled siding was removed. Now that the house has lap siding and the front porch has been rebuilt, the house could be reevaluated. If, however, the crown molding and built-in gutters were removed, the house would lose one of the most evident pieces of its historic character. The applicant has submitted photos of the existing condition of the gutters. They are obviously deteriorated and in need of repair. They leak and have damaged siding and other materials below them. It appears that an original tin material currently lines them and it may have been recoated at some time but is not currently cohesive enough to prevent water infiltration. From below, the crown molding does not appear heavily damaged. Built-in gutters can be repaired by relining them. The guidelines allow EPDM (roofing membrane) as an economical alternative material to metal lining. Replacing the deteriorated tin vnth EPDM should also allow the slope to be improved so that the gutters drain properly. While it is evident that the built-in gutters need repair, staff does not find evidence at this time that they are beyond repair. In addition, staff fords that the removal of the crown molding and built-in gutters would be disallowed by the guidelines since they are a significant historic feature on this house. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1009 East College Street as presented in the application except: Crown molding, built-in gutter, and fascia removal is not approved. Application ftllr'Mst6 is Review Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook; which is available in the Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook For Staff Use: pD Date submitted: I Gd/� ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Majorreview ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minof review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check Primary coxram peawk) ❑ Property Owner Name: t Email: �t` A E'll"Al er Phone Number: FBI Address: City: State: pmr�'- V. Zip Code: 5 Z'Z46 Contractor/ Consultant Name:. L.6-ry61 ccl ?5f-a Email L ct � Go IS nos 401 not r 1, L.&hone Number, (3tq) '5 L/ 13 Address: City: Proposed Address: flip R C . C<ettt eLre, Use of Property: State: Zip Code: Information Date Constructed (if known): Historic Desigmadon (Maps are lomed m the Historic Pm rvaion Haixibook) ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR try This Property is within a historic or conservation district {choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District East College Street Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Goosetown /Horace Mann Conservation District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Within the district, this Property is classified as: KContributing 0 Noncontributing 13 Nonhisioric ApplicatioD Requirements Choose appropriate project We. 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, pbotographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product hrforrnation ❑ Site plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance, ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: Mav� 5 dA JV4 SE rM 2�3n IC7 iLc PG.�f?-ec` L.vl Adl A r kDb r LTmneM TW T &e-g c,1 i r, Pip rr In GL1 Fiw. lAde Materials to be Used: e S ati,,. C) e , �U� R,# A lzrr_rt , . e✓ -t L.t j , e, ro H-4, i oAiAe� �� I Exterior Appearance Mspreslapp for Wsror;crchew,doc 61414 e' A •K � k&A&Z, t:. .r . k6r"'DVe 6R6WOJ -15,K fkmS x "Row; In-ro S;IAQOLLS *L)tLL- qmq Pr-- C--VAo VMof sr� ass n F�55khtisrA4)j6 Nas Reemovea laeco75e- rtr1e, Ra-Creel wGm— bs "A- I 1�rQ �a iArh PRfI'iEi_"CL9hi /nR A SeAL A -IC s P�e.Ev D:r �� rn� P•�ew� rb tpntist'�R �SLknJ(r r 11 4. rf 17 k r, � �! coo-:: � a we I j\ ILM , Aftediv s 44 Roofing Pr0 00fingPro �c#S! Defining Excellence"" W WW.MALARKEYROOFING. COM l Distributed From: %W SILYERW00D� COLOR AVAILABILITY LegacVO Legacy® FAME, SCOTCHGARD" PROTECTION FROM 3M Algae growth on a mof can most black streaks, which can alter the color of your roof and ..it. it % appear aged. Shingles wills Scotchgard� Pmtecmr help mention the aesthetic appearance of your roof by reststieg black streaks caused by algae, which may reduce the need to clean your roof Shingles with Srotchgard' Protector include a 20-year watranty- EXTREME WEATHER PROTECTION Malarkey's Flemt' SBS polymer mndifled asphalt shingles received the UL 2218 Clots 4 impact resistance rating, which is the highest rating postlble. In a Class 4 impact test, Malarkey's F)amr' SRS _ polyme,modtfiedshinglm withstoodasimululonofbairswnesimpacding aroofat90 mph(144kph) without sustaining damage. SUPERIOR GRANULAR EMBEDMENT Flexor' SBS polymer modified asphalt is resillmt through temperature cycles, providing greater �...,� granule Ahersionto the shingle. When granules stay on the shingle, a creates a homer from the elements and your roof lasts longer. FL-E:><OF!' T /HFE Z O N E RAIN SEAL PROTECTION 41 , 4�* ENHANCED WINO YlARRANTY a•. O 0 m B o F c m€ W r2 Z O S U) tli rp arta sraia FLEXOR" SBS POLYMER MODIFIED ASPHALT Flexor'" SBS polymer modified asphalt in". the we athembtkty ofshinigher through superior ginumleadhesiunandall-weatherilexa ity. Malarkey blends their Fluor SRS polymer modified arplask at each of their Famhun to maintain and controi high qualoy standards. THE ZONE® One ofthe most smind aspectsofa suecessfu) roofing project is manses instalbumi Improperfastener placement is the leading mute of incorrect shingle installation and ran subsequently void the warranty. Malarkey lambs[, shingles are ma vvfactoved with The Zoaeo patented sanding area, which is over three times larger than other laminate shingles and dramatically improves no,met fastener pbranit. ALL-WEATHER FLEXIBILITY Aram' gas polymer modified asphalt ensures that shingles are flexible in temperatures down to 0•F (-IB'C), which is 40 degrees lower than the typical installation of standard ssphalt. This told weather flexibility allows the shiog)e to be installed in colder temperatures than standard oxidized mpbalt shingles without damage to the shingle. Flexor' a]laws the sheoglc to conform to a variety of roof si r era e,, withstand extreme weather L7cles, sort he installed in a wider range ofamates. DOUBLE RAIN SEAL PROTECTION A rain seal helps hold shingles In one during high wood, and protect against wind-blown pin entering beneath the shingles. Malarkey 6mieare shtnglos are marmfacturod wuh an extra line of defense in the critical area For laminated shingles, with double SEES asphak rain seals. Malarkey's SEES asphalt has adhesive propettim to join the shingle together and twhesim properties to prevent it From separating. SEES is also Dexible down to WF (-I8'C), maturing the min sea] remains intact though Freae and thaw cycles. LIMITED WIND WARRANTY Legacy' ehrngles come with a 110 mph (177 kph) Limited Wind Warranty. ENHANCED WIND WARRANTY Legacy° shingles are eligible For a 130 mph (209 kph) Enhanced Wind Warranty when Malarkey's Smart Start" thoughts are tn,talled, shrogles are 6-naiW, and one or more of Malarkey's supporting products- Arctic Seal., R,gh[Start UDL, SeeureStart', EZ-Rtdge'(8",10")or Hip &Ridge Strips (l0", 12")-are used. Jr - + FEATURING • Limited Lifeame Shingle Warranty • 15-year Right Start' Warranty `�� TEST COMPLIANCE • ASTM D7158 Clans H • ASTM D3462 ® • ASTM 133t61 C[as9 F • ASTM D3018 Typed e w • ASTM 15108 Class A Fire Rating -UL 221S am •CSA A123.5 •ICC Approval-ESR 31SO Intertek •FEC Approva4-#14809 Distributed from: a Portland, OR • South Gate, CA Oklahoma City, OK DISCLAIMEA. Sr�le pr.m w pM.gr rpA, oyd.:•grw may n. uuvrvudy.yrnenr the nv,mlm w vmsariwsgrrdorhh d. char wru vpve we rm J�„rvr.umraa.j+nm.r, miagla aeante 6emra ram m�arenrard�are„far�igrodmmdwlw7e.d. grnmr�.rk ur ufurury, .,d.rwy�'drxlaAel pr«wdrrrg wnh;aadlauea. fnlmrerMgmeflmnmvw6fnvmdrmpe x0rouraarttt. SMngk wmr� w,nwlubk,n uN ragson,. Lunnci re„uwm m.ry rams nod meLuay. Pfwe mrrurtywr total Mvlwael'R'ammms.(wrvtw .adanJny meal non ryarmavaa s.,Ralma,y snrrSr, it rraey�r �mh 'im rampk,Limrred Lhferrnu wm,mr Mxh, rrfnrev R. i'y'e Lowed tyia— SU'le W.y •Somkgurd^ algar Rmma"r shrnglr p.varm rryw.v ayyua.uv wr ez.11dg," (9", !a") w Nip A414e5wir. (lo", lz"). m sew/uec.nn"ah Attar rs,,.am rh.glu,mmrn.r rhrjvR zoos znnhgwd-AN,, xnt,tam Sw"Slrpmw.ur ynndbofas- J,."na# 3wuhgurd' wa he snhmmmd m hrp.adoje sfint k, . rayswsa n won alga, ream. d lgae, ..¢rare rh find zopa SanuWd- wmr,s y. 51W1, a'd "eel a, Swandurd raga, rwpdrez rbe plaid delge sea 3Mlagq.111 nud,m.ir of 3M. ••Swce wm.crwra adupr w"J1ng.hreg/m rw rue m hrp uMndpv,hrngb,s. Uw of TMAl.hoa.a hip andrMge rhs.,ele w<II apply rewords she Enhumxl riled Werraery mum -Sol" J.uO.h md� r Arp wd..dgr.ill oar quv0fj rwa.3au fahrrm,d NSmd Warrumy rho .,mwe.4eerndes.dl prersws mnwu. R,r S/rs R�loogProct' acts! Defining Excellence:"` P.O. BOX 17217, Portland, OR 97217 503.283.1191 1 800.545.1191 1 Fax:S03.289.7644 W W W. MALARKEYROOFING. COM MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2015 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Kate Corcoran STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS. 328 Brown Street. Miklo said this property is in the Brown Street Historic District at the northwest corner of Brown and Gilbert Streets. He showed a photograph of the house as it appears today, as well as one taken in 1903 after a fire had destroyed the attic level of the house. Miklo asked the Commission members to note the railing above the porch. He showed a photograph taken in about 1920 in which the railing is missing but there was railing elsewhere. Miklo stated that the proposal has two aspects including adding a one-story addition to the back, north side of the house. He said that as part of that addition, staff spoke with the applicant about the Secretary of Interior Standards, the guidelines that discuss preserving historic materials, and, if one adds on to a structure, doing it in such a way that changes to the original design are minimized if someone wants to go back and undo the work. Miklo said that would be unlikely with an addition of this size. Miklo showed a window that he said would be retained in the interior of the house as part of this project. He said the existing rear door would be removed and reused, and the material from one window will be saved on the property. Miklo showed a view from the north side of the house, looking to the south to the north wall of the house and what the addition would look like. He said it would be on a foundation similar to the foundation of the house and would be mostly windows on the north elevation. Miklo said the applicant has indicated that instead of having transom windows, there will be full height windows. Miklo said the door would be recessed into a little porch area. He said that if one looks at it from Gilbert Street, the area would actually be an indentation and a recess of the door there. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 8, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Miklo said that with the original application, there was a lot of discussion about how to treat the sides of the addition that are not going to be covered in windows. He said that rather than doing a board and batten design, staff has come to agreement with the owners to do a panel -type design, similar to what is on the front porch of the house. Miklo showed the west side of the addition. He said it would be very similar but would have a small bay window. Regarding the front, Miklo stated that the panels under the windows would be similar in design to the panels on the front porch. Rather than wood for the railing, Miklo said the applicants are proposing a Fypon material. He said that the guidelines call for wood but allow the Commission to approve an alternative material if it finds that it has the same quality and appearance of wood. Miklo said staff feels this product has come a long way and does a good job of mimicking wood when painted but will probably stand up to weather better than wood. He said the fact that all of these spindles above the front porch are missing from the original house indicate that it is not a good application for wood in an exposed environment like this over the long term. Miklo said staff does recommend allowing the material for the addition, some of the trim work such as the railing, and the porch details. Miklo said staff has discussed the option of not putting the railing on with the applicant, given that this is the back of the house and an addition, so one might want to make it simpler and not try to match the historic part of the house exactly. He said staff is recommending that the applicant have the option of putting it on or leaving it off, and staff feels it actually might look better with it off. Miklo stated that staff was expecting a revised drawing but did not receive one. He said the Commission could defer this to the next meeting if it wants to see the detailed drawings or approve it subject to chair and staff signing off on the detailed drawings. Swaim said there was some discussion of reducing the number of vertical balustrades and asked if that would be on the back or the front. Miklo said it would probably be for both. He replied that on the front they are spaced farther apart. Miklo said the reason the draftsperson showed them this close together is that there has to be a maximum four -inch space between spindles. He said that because the area above the porch will not have access, code does not require the maximum four -inch, so they can be spaced farther apart. Durham asked if the owner is proposing putting the railing on the front and back. Miklo confirmed this, saying the owner is proposing to replicate the railing that was original on the front and doing the same on the back. Swaim asked about the balcony on the west side on the bay. Miklo said the owner is not proposing to reinstall in the two areas and will leave those off. Sandell stated that on the back porch it looks like there are columns on that open area. He asked if those columns would match the ones in front. Miklo confirmed this. He said there were wood columns on the front that rotted. Miklo said they are fiberglass that the Commission approved several years ago. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 8, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Same Sandell asked if the one window of the little arched windows is remaining on the interior of the house and the other will be saved. Miklo answered that the owner will save the components of the window and the stone trim work. Sandell asked about the paneling in Bristow's sketch and if that would translate on to the north elevation below the windows. Miklo confirmed this. He said that it would be under the windows and under the west side as well, with the idea to make it look more like an open porch versus putting in a siding material that is not used elsewhere on the house. Michaud asked if they would be in squares instead of rectangular panels. Miklo responded that maybe all of them will be rectangular. He said that detail is still unknown, but staff would recommend a panel under each window. Michaud said this house has had a number of wood things replaced, which she has no problem with. She asked what the difficulty is with Trex for a porch floor. Michaud said she knows a porch floor is not being done here, but recently she was told that Trex would not be suitable for a front porch floor, but it would look a lot more like wood than this. Miklo said that Trex has been allowed in conservation districts and on back decks. He said it has not been allowed on front decks, because it does have a fake wood grain and fir wood floor is still available. Swaim said there are a lot of new synthetic materials that the Commission has seen in the last couple of years. Miklo said the difference between this and the Trex that is used for flooring is that this is a smooth finish, and if one doesn't see the cutaway, one couldn't tell that it is not a piece of wood, whereas one can with the Trex. Swaim asked if the Fypon could be used for a floor. Miklo answered that he does not believe that it has been designed or engineered for flooring. Regarding the Fypon product, Baker asked, should the Commission approve it for this application, is it then saying that it is approved for all future uses. Miklo said that it is on a case by case basis. Agran said that one of the things about wood is that it is somewhat interchangeable over time. He asked if the railing will be a system. Miklo replied that they come in different components so that there would be a top rail, the balustrades, etc. so that elements could be changed out over time. He said an example of this is the Shambaugh House on Clinton and Davenport Streets, with a railing made of this material. Agran said his one concern was that when one buys some kind of stock trim molding and has to go back later to buy it again, something has been changed or it's no longer available. He said his concern more generally about these kinds of products is what the future of it is. Swaim said the options are then to either vote for approval with final approval by chair and staff or wait and see the final plan at the next meeting. She said it is a big, very important building, and these are substantial changes. Akerson said the family has taken very good care of the house, and it's clear the applicant wants to do things the right way. He said he has no problem leaving final review up to staff and the chair. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 8, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Sandell said that when the revised drawings come back with the elongated windows, does that mean that the bottom course where panels were discussed would match the front. Miklo showed where there would be panels. He said staff would like to see a panel under each window, and the window would be elongated at the top, not from the bottom. Sandell asked if proportionally that fits in with the guidelines, as it appears that from the finished floor to the first level of the column may be a little bit taller on the front porch. He said that it appears to him that the proportion of the windows is a lot greater than the panel. Miklo said he believes it is a taller space. He said he did not know how important it is that it match. Miklo said it is a screened -in porch type look. Sandell said he agreed that this is a good project but just wondered about the proportions. MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 328 Brown Street as presented, subject to chair and staff approval of the final drawings. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-1 (Swaim voting no and Corcoran absent). 1025 Burlinaton Street Miklo said this property is on the south side of Burlington Street in the College Hill Conservation District. He said the property had significant alterations about 15 years ago, including enclosing the front porch and the shortening and boxing in of the windows on the first floor. Miklo said the applicant is the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program, and the proposal is to try to undo as much of the remodeling as possible within budget and then selling it to a homeowner who will hopefully take over from there. Miklo said the proposal includes reopening the front porch and trying to restore it to the original appearance. He showed where columns are still evident. Regarding windows, Miklo said the proposal is, where the interior function allows, to put the windows back in place in a size similar to what was there originally. He showed the area that was once a door, with the proposal being to put a window back in. Miklo presented a Photoshop prepared by Bristow that shows what the windows would look like on the fronts and sides of the house where they would be put more to their original state. For a few of the windows such as the kitchen and bathrooms, Miklo said the proposal is not to elongate them but to put them back to a level that is appropriate for a kitchen counter and then re -side the areas with wood siding. Miklo showed where there were three windows at one time. He said that a stairway was moved to this part of the house at one point, so it is not practical to put all three back, but one of them will be placed here. Miklo said there are two chimneys on the house, but one is pretty deteriorated and is likely to come off. He stated that the other one will be investigated to see if it can be retained. Miklo said the applicant is asking for permission to remove them both. He said that although the one chimney is somewhat prominent, it is not an architectural feature like a fireplace chimney. Miklo said staff recommends approval with conditions HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 8, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Swaim asked about the roof. Miklo answered that the proposal includes removing the metal roof, which is a second generation roof, to put on asphalt, architectural grade shingles that would mimic the original roof, which was wood shingles. Swaim asked about the garage in the back. Miklo said the proposal is to remove the chimney from the garage. He said it is unusual for a garage to have a chimney, so staff does not have a problem with that. Miklo showed some photographs of the building. Sandell asked about the porch flooring. Miklo answered that he believes it is carpet but thinks the original floor might be under that. He said it may be fine after the carpet is pulled out. MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1025 Burlington Street as presented in the application and staff report with the following conditions: 1) if the porch flooring needs replacement, it is replaced with either vertical - grained fir flooring or a material approved by staff; 2) if either or both chimneys on the house need to be removed, their condition warrants it and their removal is approved by staff and chair; and 3) new window product approved by staff. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Corcoran absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review. 403 E. Jefferson Street. Miklo said this is one of the first projects under the new requirements for review of roofs. He said that an asphalt roof was replaced with an asphalt roof - an architectural grade shingle that does a reasonable job of mimicking a wood shingle roof. 1223 E. Burlington Street. Miklo said the porch is being rebuilt to match what was there. 1024 Woodlawn Avenue. Miklo said this is the repair of rotten wood. 530 Ronalds Street. Miklo said this involves the repair of a soffit on the back of the house to match what was there. 739 Clark Street. Miklo stated that the crumbled driveway is being replaced with a new, concrete driveway. 613 E. College Street. Miklo stated that the front steps are being replaced with material to match what is there. Minor Review — Preapproved Item — Staff Review. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 8, 2015 Page 6 of 7 715 N. Johnson Street. Miklo said that some modern, slider windows on the back of the house are being replaced with double -hung windows appropriate for matching what is already on the house. 506 Clark Street. Miklo said that a number of casement windows are being repaired on a non -historic property. 636 South Governor Street. Miklo said this is a similar situation to the Clark Street house. Swaim stated that the house at 1025 Burlington Street is a good example to keep in the Commission's portfolio of before and after photographs. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 10, 2015: MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's September 10, 2015 meeting, as written. Clore seconded the minutes. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Corcoran absent). Baker said that a couple of months ago a neighbor of hers in the east College Street Historic District with a deteriorated brick chimney had received an exorbitant bid to remove the chimney and had come before the Commission to ask for permission to remove it and put up a metal, round pipe coming through with a cap on it. She said the Commission gave suggestions for other ways to fix the problem. Baker said she talked to one of the owners who said they were able to get the chimney repaired and are really pleased with how it turned out. She said the owner thanked Baker for the Commission's work. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:54 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014-2015 X = Present O = WpdPdIE TERM EXP. 11113 12/11 1/8 2112 3112 419 5/14 6/11 719 8113 9110 1018 ACKER,SQWKENT 3/29/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X AGRAN, THOMAS 3/29/17 O/E X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X BAKER, ESTHER 3/29/18 O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 3/29/17 X O/E X X X X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X CORCORAN, KATE 3/29/16 X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E O/E DURHAM, FRANK 3/29/16 X X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X O/E X LITTON, ANDREW 3/29/17 X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X MICHAUD, PAM 3/29/18 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X SANDELL, BEN 3/29/17 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X SWAIM, GINALIE 3/29/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X WAGNER, FRANK 3/29/18 X O/E O/E O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E O/E X X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member