Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 12.8.16 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2016 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd, Zach Builta, Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker, Andrew Litton STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Will Downing, Chris Pisarik, Alicia Trimble RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. COMMISSION AND PUBLIC SITE VISIT TO 724 RONALDS STREET: Bristow said the Commission will travel to 724 Ronalds Street. She said the property needs to be viewed to determine whether it is contributing or non-contributing. Bristow stated that up to two Commission members can ride in one vehicle. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 821 North Gilbert Street. Bristow said this property is in the Brown Street Historic District. She said the house was moved to this site in 1980 and may have been moved from the South Gilbert area. Bristow said it is unknown how old this house is. Bristow said the house has been a duplex, but the owner is making this a single-family home. Bristow said that for that reason, the owner wants to remove the spare door that is on the north side of the porch. Bristow said that in the past with a different owner, the Commission had approved rebuilding the columns and the balustrade on the porch. She said the work in the past had been started without any notification, and the pediment front was removed from the roof before the Commission knew about it. Bristow said the new owner now wants to remove the door. Bristow said staff has looked at examples of other houses of this type and style. She said that in most of those houses, this location where the door is to be removed would just be a wall. Bristow said the owner wants to HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 2 of 16 put a window in that location, so that there will be light coming into the area where stairs come down that side of the house. Bristow said staff found some examples where there is a window. She said the owner would like to put the window exactly in the opening in the door but with a really high sill, which would push it up against the corner board on the siding. Bristow showed photographs of examples of houses with windows next to the door. Bristow said staff has been working with the applicant to find a window similar to what the owner would like but one that is pulled a little away from the corner board so that there is a little bit of siding and relief between the window and the wall. Bristow showed a mockup of how the window could look. Bristow said that all of the trim would match, because all of the original windows, not storms, are on the house. She said the owner is seeking approval to certainly remove the door and to put the window in if she can afford it. Bristow said it will be more expensive to have a custom-sized window that does not go to the corner. She stated that cost is not something the Commission should consider, so she is trying to help the owner find a better solution. Bristow said that the window the owner provided has not necessarily been approved either. Bristow said staff wants to work with the owner to ensure the window used blends well with other existing, original windows. She said the owner wants to use something that is wood on the inside and the outside. Bristow said that staff's recommendation is to approve removing the door, whether a window is installed there or not. She said staff feels fairly strongly that the window should not extend all the way to the corner board but that the window should be approved eventually by staff or staff and the chair. Kuenzli said she thinks it looks terrific. Wagner asked if there is a window on the other side of the house. Bristow responded that there is not in that location. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 821 North Gilbert as presented in the application with the following condition: the window product information is approved by staff to ensure it matches existing windows on the house. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Baker and Litton absent). 1130 Seymour Avenue. Bristow said this property is the Longfellow School. She said the architect is available to answer questions after the presentation. Bristow showed the east facade, which is historically the front of the building, of the school. She said the architect of the building was J. L. Lockhart, and it was built in 1917. Bristow said that there were some additions to the west side of the school after World War II. Bristow stated that the Commission has approved several projects for the school in the past. She said that the architect is now working on extensive renovations to the interior finishes and proposes to replace all of the windows that are actually replacement windows with something HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 3 of 16 that would look more like the original window configuration. Bristow said the plan includes adding air conditioning, a stair tower in the back, and a larger gymnasium addition on the west side. Bristow showed an historic 1954 photograph of the building. She said it looks as though the windows are possibly nine or six over one. Bristow said the architect is still working on the configuration of the window panes for the new replacement windows. Bristow showed the current south facade of the school and the site plan. She said there would be an entrance on the west side of the building with a bus turn around and drop off. Bristow said that a lot of the emphasis for the front of the structure would return to the east side of the building. Bristow said the site plan shows an addition in the southwest corner. She showed the gymnasium addition along the west side, the stair tower location, and the classroom addition in the back. Bristow showed the existing plan with the 1940s addition. She said the proposed ground floor addition includes the area to the southwest, the connection point, athletic storage, and the gymnasium. Bristow said this is working toward cleaning up and making the corridor pass- through area clearer. She showed the elevator location. Bristow showed where the restrooms would be pulled out into a different area. Bristow showed the first level plan and the 1940s addition area. She said the original plan shows the reception and office area. Bristow said the new first level plan maintains the corridor area separate from the media center. She said the addition area contains an art and computer emphasis that has been moved from a lower level classroom. Bristow showed the stair tower in the plan and a new entry point. Bristow showed the second level plan. She said the proposed southwest addition does not continue up to the second level so that just roof is shown on the new plan. Bristow said the classroom added on in the back continues up to the second story. Bristow said this project resulted in a lot of discussion of Preservation Brief #14. She said the guidelines do not discuss a project of this scale, although the guidelines do discuss continuing horizontal emphasis, a semblance of the type of detailing one might find in the exterior materials, some semblance of rhythm, and making an addition subordinate to the main building. Bristow said those kinds of things still are really applicable to this kind of building, but Preservation Brief 14 talks more about commercial buildings and how to put an addition on to something larger than our typical residential structure and have it maintain the historic character of the building. She said that the existing east elevation will not be touched with this new addition. Bristow said everything is located behind. She said one sees the southwest addition protruding to the south and some of the new entry and the stair tower protruding to the north, but they do not overpower the existing building. Bristow said the material choice of brick will be complementary. She said there is some horizontal continuation with the head of the windows. Bristow said there is a change in the color of the brick banding between the floor levels that is continued. She said there is also an emphasis, seen more on the south elevation, where on the original building there were brick HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 4 of 16 piers that are very strong leading up from the ground to the cornice, and there is an attempt here to make a similar feeling in the modern construction. Bristow said it is not as detailed as the original construction, but it does speak to the design of that building. She added that the south addition is a story shorter, so it is subordinate in that way as well. Bristow showed the new south elevation. She said that staff talked to the architect about one of the important factors listed in Preservation Brief #14 that discusses including a change in the connection between the original building and the new building. Bristow said the Preservation Brief discusses this as a hyphen. She said the addition might step back, there might be a little area that steps back, or sometimes there is a change in the material. Bristow said that going back to the plan, one can see that they have added in something to maintain the corner of the building. She said the elevation has not been updated yet, but staff feels that change might show up a little better if there is a little bit of change of material. Bristow said staff has not spoken to the applicant since the change was made without anything having to do with the size or materiality of that hyphen. Referring to the 1940s addition, Bristow said it already was as tall as the original building. She said that some of the classroom shows in the back. Bristow showed the shorter addition that is being proposed in the front. Bristow said that from the southwest, one sees the addition. She said the entrances have been made of kind of a glass. Bristow showed the back of the building. She said it seems appropriate to staff that there is a greater simplification of the building on the back of it. Bristow said there is not a need to have the detail that there would be seen from the front. She said that to staff, this is an appropriate change. Bristow said this is also adding on to the 1940s addition, which is already significantly different from the original building. Bristow showed the view from the northwest, about as far in the back of the building as one can get from both of the street views, pointing out the stair addition, the classroom addition, and the gymnasium addition. Bristow showed the view from the north, which she said is really only visible from the back of some of the houses and from the playground area. She showed the stair addition, the classroom addition, and the other entry that is really only a ground floor entry but is a glass entry. Bristow showed the view from the northeast. Bristow said she had included a few images from Preservation Brief 14 that show the idea of a hyphen or building connector. She discussed the buildings in the photographs and the additions. Bristow said that at this point, staff feels this is definitely going in the right direction. She said she would like to see the hyphen area a little more fully developed. Bristow stated that because of the fact that at least the original drawings were in a schematic design and the project will have to go through design development and construction documents, staff feels that maybe having a final facade approval with staff and chair before the building permit is issued might be an appropriate way to look at this project as it continues through development. Swaim said she applauds the administration, the school board, and the architects for trying to come up with a workable way to rehabilitate an old neighborhood school. She said that it is an HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 5 of 16 historic building and part of a neighborhood. Swaim said it is a big, important project, and she appreciates all the detail it is being given. Downing said that he is the architect for this project. He said he thinks Bristow's analysis and description are right on for what is being proposed. Downing said that as a neighbor and parent at the school, he is glad the district has decided to put the time and effort into maintaining this neighborhood feature, rather than building new somewhere else. Downing said he had good discussions with Bristow and Miklo about the articulation of the new addition - the hyphen between the new and existing. He said he thinks the key to the design is maintaining the original 1917 building as a distinct and whole structure. Downing said he thinks that previous additions were sympathetic to the original building, and they want to keep that sympathy. Downing said they are stepping back from the principal facade, the east facade, with the addition, but as Bristow noted, the south facade that has become by default the main entrance because of the orientation of the streets that have grown up around the school, this portion has to go out to what are the zoning limits for expansion. He said they do not want to take up more of the playground and more of the sloped and treed areas to the north and west. Downing said that he and his firm are excited to be involved with the project. He said that Chris Pisarik, the principal, is available for questions. Pisarik thanked Downing and his team and the community for this exciting opportunity. He said that the staff and families are enthusiastic as well. Pisarik thanked the Commission for the time and effort spent on this. Swaim said it is nice to see the original east facade act that way again, with the faculty parking on that end. She said that is the way the architect wanted it to be, and it was built and designed that way. Kuenzli said that when the windows at City High School were changed, they were done so that they could not be opened from the top and only a little from the bottom. She said that it was incredibly hot. Kuenzli said that when one could open the windows from the top and bottom, there was air circulation, and air conditioning was not always needed. She asked if that would be a possibility in this building, where there are so many windows. Downing said that the proposed windows would be double hung windows, so they could be opened at the top and bottom. On a photograph of the original 1954 facade, he showed where, in the upper right, the sashes in the top are lowered and the lower ones brought up. Kuenzli said she applauds that the school is being saved and not being razed and replaced with something new. She said she loves the multiplication of windows that are going in most places. Kuenzli said, however, that she has a real problem with the west side and the view from the northwest. She said that these seem, in comparison to the other sides, just so massive. Kuenzli said that on the west side particularly, the tall, narrow windows remind her of a medieval, military structure with the arrow slits, rather than repeating the vertical lines, the pilasters, on the east side. She added that the mass is just so much more compared to the more gracious front with all the windows in it. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 6 of 16 Kuenzli said it is important from the northwest also, because the neighborhood really uses that playing field. She said that to see those blank, solid brick walls, albeit with a few horizontal bands, is not welcoming and does not match the fenestration on the other side. Kuenzli asked if it would be possible to put some more windows there to relieve the mass of that part of the building. Bristow said that the existing northwest is actually windowless. Downing said that the gymnasium addition is not as tall. He said that the tall portion is actually the back side of the post-WWII addition to the building. Downing said the lower portion in front of that comprises the addition. Kuenzli said, regarding the section to the left, that there is not a window in it. Downing said they could certainly consider detailing of the brick. Kuenzli asked if there could be more fenestration. Downing said a window was added for the office since the initial plan. Regarding the upper levels, he said he would have to look at the layout of classrooms to see if it is appropriate. Downing said that large window walls limit the classroom wall capabilities, but he could look at that. Swaim asked if there is any landscaping on that side of the building. Downing said that currently it is a wide, asphalt parking lot. He said that the addition will come nearly half way into that, and it will be reduced to a 24-foot-wide driveway. Downing said the amount of asphalt will be reduced on the west side of the building and the required screening will be added. Kuenzli asked what the well field indicates. Downing replied that the building is intended to be heated and cooled with a geothermal system. He said the well field refers to the horizontal well for the geothermal system. Downing said that will just go under the soccer field. Kuenzli said she feels that some windows would lighten up the mass of the addition. Downing responded that the gymnasium is being designed as a storm shelter, so larger windows there would be technically difficult and perhaps detrimental to the shelter feature. Michaud said she was concerned about the glass stairway on the southwest side. She said it seems vulnerable to the frequent straight line winds that we have. Downing said that as a glass curtain wall, it will be not unlike a lot of buildings in Iowa City that have glass as an entry feature. Downing said that the stairway is not in the glass enclosure; it is a vestibule. Agran said he thinks this is great and offers a lot of improvement over some bad things that are currently there. Regarding the southwest addition, he said that the little building off to the side is really prominent from the street. Agran said there is a lot that has been echoed from the original building, and it may be ornamentally subordinate to the main building. He said it seems to him that there is no cornice or cornice ornamentation. Agran said that on the main building, right above all the windows, there is an alteration to the roofline that echoes all of that. He suggested that the small section, while subordinate to the main building, is really visible from the street and could have a little bit more ornamentation to tie it into the building a little bit better. Agran said the same would be for the limestone lintel that is part of the band or sill that goes around. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 7 of 16 Agran asked if, in the current building, the upper portions of the windows are blocked out because of a drop ceiling. Downing confirmed this. Agran asked if the original ceiling heights will be restored as part of that, with the original amount of light coming in. Downing answered that the geothermal system will have a heat pump in each room so that each room can be individually controlled for temperature. He said that there will be duct work that needs to go up and distribute above a ceiling. Downing said that in the original building, the classroom size was from floor structure to the bottom of the floor structure above. He said that because of the need for moving air, some ceiling space will be required. Downing stated that the ceilings will be lower than the top of the window opening and slightly higher than they are now. He said they want to get rid of the opaque panels at the top of the windows and have the clear portion of the window go all the way up. Boyd asked if there is an ability to add that hyphen kind of space in the plan. Downing confirmed this. He said he is working on that connection. Downing said the renderings of three- dimensional views have not been updated yet, but he has been working on that plan. Agran said it is hard to tell the size of the hyphen. Agran said he is of the opinion that the change, if there is that little hyphen, a shadow line that is created by that, it is enough. He said he does not think it needs to be a separate material. Builta said he noticed that a lot of the hyphens in Preservation Brief #14 were windows. He said he thought that was really beautiful. Builta said it made it obvious that it was a change of building but did not take away from the original. He said they are like mostly windows. Downing said that is a possibility and is under consideration. Boyd asked if the Commission would see updates as new drawings are produced, the windows are figured out, etc. Bristow said there are multiple ways this could go, kind of depending on the architect's schedule for the project. She said that the Commission could rule that it wants to see updated drawings and have this back at a future meeting. Bristow said that otherwise, it could be something where staff works with the applicant, and perhaps staff and the chair approve what has been done. She said that way the applicant can get initial approval. Boyd asked, if the Commission approves this subject to staff and chair review, would the Commission see updates at some point. Bristow replied that staff would definitely show the Commission updated drawings in the future once they are received. DeGraw asked about the east entrance and the place marked storage. Downing said that when the building was constructed, that was the main entrance, and the little slit that says storage was a stair that went up to the first floor and down to the lower level. DeGraw said it seems like it would be a more inviting entrance if it just wasn't there and was a space that one could walk into. Downing said that one can still come in and out of that entrance, but because of handicapped accessibility, it cannot be the main entrance to the building. Clore said she is very excited about the proposal. She said it looks great. MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1130 Seymour Avenue as presented in the application with the following conditions: the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 8 of 16 "hyphen" is more fully developed as a visual break between old and new portions and approved by staff and chair, and staff is consulted during design development if details that could impact the appearance of the new addition as visible from the south or west arise to ensure some adherence to principles found in Preservation Brief 14, with final approval of elevation drawings by staff and chair prior to issuance of building permit. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Baker and Litton absent). 429 Ronalds Street. Bristow said this property is in the Goose Town/Horace Mann Conservation District. She said the Commission approved the porch addition to this house last spring. Bristow said the Commission also approved removing a door and replacing it with a window. Bristow stated that the owner currently has an application in for a storage building. She said that the storage building is a 12 by 12 square. Bristow said that if that was all it was, it would not come to the Commission for review. She said that the fact that it has a second-story play area increases its square footage so that it does come under Commission review. Bristow said that like any outbuilding in a district, it is intended to be like a simple garage-type or barnlike structure. She stated that the house has a hip roof with gable projections, so the fact that this would have a hip roof would be appropriate for this. Bristow said the shingles would match what new shingles would be, which is also appropriate. Bristow stated that staff feels the T111 siding is not appropriate and that a way to improve that may actually be to modify it into a board and batten type of siding. She showed photographs of some of the typical garage-like structures, although this is not big enough to be a garage. Bristow said that two-story outbuilding structures would typically have a full second story so that there would not be a break in the roofline. She said staff feels that in this instance, because of the fact that it is appropriately located, with appropriate setbacks, and is on the back of the property, it is still close enough to the neighboring house so that having the smaller footprint on the second story minimizes the amount that it blocks views from the other house. Bristow said that while it may have a different appearance, it allows views from the other house more than one would typically see. Bristow stated that the window is currently a white, vinyl window. She said there is also one on the opposite side. Bristow said that since this is a play structure, by code it is allowed to have a ladder. She said staff feels that is less obtrusive than a massive stair. Bristow said the railing does not meet code but certainly looks more like a tree house railing than a big, formal porch railing, so staff does not necessarily find the railing to be inappropriate. She said that at the same time, the homeowner realizes that he has not met the guidelines with this particular railing. Bristow showed the railing as it exists. She showed an example of an appropriate railing, according to the guidelines. Bristow said staff recommends, while this is a little unusual, approving a certificate of appropriateness for the structure, modifying the siding in some way, and painting or replacing HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 9 of 16 the window with a darker color so that it blends away into the background instead of standing out, could be appropriate. Kuenzli asked how this got built. She said that if she were a neighbor, she would be really upset. Kuenzli said that putting battens on the siding will not make it less objectionable, but the worst part of it is the railing. Bristow said staff was told that the owner inquired about this but was told that approval was not required for 144 square feet. She said that perhaps the second level was decided on mid- project. Bristow said that because it cannot really be judged with the fact that it is built, it needs to be judged as if it were planned. She said that if it did not have a second story at all, it would not need to come before the Commission. Clore asked, if the second floor was open like a tree house, would the square footage still be included in the 144. Bristow said she does not know all of the building code issues that come up with this, but the building officials have agreed that it is a playhouse on the second level so that it can have a ladder instead of a formal set of stairs. She said that as it is, it does not break any of the actual building or zoning codes but the square footage does count and is added to the 144.. Swaim said she agrees with Kuenzli about the railing. She asked if they can be trimmed off to the height of the horizontal and if they exceed below the floor of the porch. Swaim said they are way too visible and too big. Bristow said that it is attached a lot like the non-acceptable deck railing that is seen in the guidelines. She said staff pointed that out to the applicant right away - that the railing was in no way meeting the guidelines. Bristow said the spacing is tighter than one would want. She said the attachment along the side does not meet the guidelines. She stated that if this met the guidelines, there would be an obvious top and bottom rail and some corner posts. Swaim said she would like to see some changes to the railing. Builta said that had this not already been built, it would never have come before the Commission without staff telling the owner to make adjustments. Michaud suggested that the rail be modified so that every other post is gone or it is more in keeping with the period of the house. She said that it is a street view of an aggressive kind of fort. Bristow said it is on the corner along Van Buren. Swaim said she thinks the battens would improve it in the sense of making it sort of like a barn. She said that the current siding is in no way appropriate. Agran said the real question is whether the Commission would approve of this. He said if he were looking at just the building, disregarding the railing that is on there, he would see that the siding would not be approved. Agran said that painting will make this stand out less and tie it all together. Agran said that if the railing was not there at all, and it just had that kind of cupola on top, he would say that it is an odd little outbuilding, but it would not have to look perfect. He said he agreed with the suggestion to change the siding and felt it could be changed to lap siding to match the house as an improvement over board and batten. Agran said the Commission should HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 10 of 16 ask that the railing on the balcony be done exactly to what the specifications are, which would be separate posts with railings in between them. Agran said that if the building was not already constructed, the Commission would probably not approve the cupola as it was built. He said he did not think the Commission can say to change everything. Agran said he believes the Commission would not have approved that little deck sticking off the top of that little shed. Bristow said the Commission very clearly has to review this as if it wasn't there. She said one would want to think that this project is for a small, square twelve by twelve building where the owner wants to put a cupola on top of it. Bristow said that if the Commission wants to approve that with conditions, perhaps a condition might be a requirement that it be centered or that if it has a deck, that its railing is a certain way or that it has a certain siding. She said these things are certainly within the guidelines, and there is no reason to not go with what the guidelines require. Wagner said he agrees completely with Agran. Wagner said that the board and batten thing would make it go vertical. He said the owner doesn't have to take off the T111 siding but just nail fiber cement board on it. Wagner said that would bring it down and give it a horizontal effect. He said he would recommend painting it white and making the railing look like it should. Wagner said that it might look like a charming playhouse back there instead of an shed. Swaim stated that she likes the idea of the lap siding better than board and batten. Michaud said that if the railing is scaled down but still safe, it would be better. Swaim asked what the door material is. Bristow responded that it is wood. Boyd asked, if this had come before the Commission before being built, could the Commission recommend against it facing the street. Bristow replied that frequently the Commission deals with garages, so then the garage must be oriented in such a way that the owner can get a car in. Trimble said that when she was on the Commission and garages were reviewed, the Commission told the applicant where the pedestrian door should be. She said she thinks the Commission could have said the cupola was acceptable but had to look like a cupola, but if this was to be a playhouse, the ladder would have to be on the back. Trimble said that things are allowed on the backs of houses that are not allowed on fronts of houses. Agran said he thinks that since there is not a rule about this and this came before the Commission, the Commission may have said it would be good if this was oriented in a different direction but might not have required that. He said it is important to not set a bad precedent while also not setting a bad reputation for the Commission. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 429 Ronalds Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: the siding material be modified with either fiber cement board or wood with a four-inch reveal, as is on the house, horizontally, and painted; and that the balcony be changed to match the guidelines and be painted and approved by staff and chair. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Baker and Litton absent). HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 11 of 16 Kuenzli asked what happens if the owner decides not to make these changes, since the Commission does not have enforcement power. Trimble replied that the owner would receive a notification from the City that the City has ordered that this be changed. She said she believes the owner can eventually be fined, but it is possible that nothing could happen. Agran said these homeowners won an award for their porch. He said he believes this was an innocent mistake. Agran said if they built the porch the way it was built, the owners will do the right thing with regard to this structure. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE IN CONTRIBUTION STATUS FOR 724 RONALDS STREET. Bristow said that it has come up that this property is banked-owned, and there will be a sheriff's sale in the future. She said there are three potential projects that could occur. Bristow said the property could be just sold and rehabbed. She said the property could be sold, and if the house could come down, a single-family home could be built there. Bristow said it would come to the Commission to determine if the house could be demolished and to approve the new design. She said that approving something in the scale and style of the neighborhood would fall to the Commission. Bristow said another possibility is that this 80 by 150-foot lot could be split in two, and two single-family affordable or market rate homes could be built. She stated that both of those homes again would come before the Commission for design approval, and demolition approval of the present house would be required. Bristow said the decision to split the lot would not have to come before the Commission. Bristow said that on October 17, she and Wagner visited the property. She said that one of the conditions for demolition is that the property be structurally unsound. Bristow said that she and Wagner had a brief and cursory view of the house and determined that the house was not obviously structurally unsound, although someone could take the time to do a greater structural evaluation. She said that with doubts about that, however, the only way the house could come down otherwise would be if it was determined to be a noncontributing structure. Bristow said that because there have been questions about the amount of historic material that is still evident or existing with this house, it is put to the Commission for a vote. She said that the contribution status of a property can change. Bristow said that is part of the reason why there are conservation districts, in case a house could be improved to contributing. She added that a house can be remodeled so that it is no longer contributing. Bristow showed images of the house and the location of the house in the Brown Street Historic District. She said that the front extension was added at some point before this was a historic district. Bristow said the little bay on one side was also added and showed an area that may have been added. Bristow said that at some point within the past couple of decades, the house was completely raised up and the foundation was completely rebuilt under the house. She said that the 1933 Sanborn fire insurance map shows the addition off the back, so it is possible that an addition was historic on this house. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 12 of 16 Bristow said the current property information shows the extra bump outs and the area under the porch. She said it is difficult to determine how much of that footprint is original. Bristow said, however, that it is known that the foundation was completely redone, the windows have all been replaced, and the siding has been replaced. Bristow said the existing garage was not the original garage but was built in 1979. She showed the original garage that no longer exists. Bristow said the existing garage is in completely dilapidated condition and would not need any approval to be demolished. She said it is not contributing and is not in good condition. Bristow showed the 1868 bird's eye view. She showed what is believed to be the house in question and said the house may have been built as early as 1860. Bristow showed other views of the house, including the addition out under the porch. She said the survey form in the packet discusses the 1980s siding. Bristow said that one of the 1970s surveys talks about this as an Italianate cottage. She said one does not see any Italianate details, although if it was built in 1868 it could have had Italianate details. Bristow said there is also discussion of the house having a simple, Italianate porch, which one no longer sees. Bristow said the point of this is not to decide whether or not this will come down, because there is no definite condition there. She said the decision is whether or not this is a contributing structure as it is or not. Bristow said staff feels that it is acceptable for the Commission to make that decision, partly because the guidelines give the Commission room to vote on that. Bristow said that Marlys Svendsen report for this district she discusses conditions and whether or not a house has been remodeled to the point where it is no longer contributing. Bristow said that Svendsen looked at the house said that it was contributing, although it is possible Svendsen's look at this particular house was very brief, because she does not talk about it individually in any way. Bristow said that given its age, it seems like she would have discussed the house if it was really contributing. Boyd asked if there is an application for this. Bristow said the City asked her to present it to the Commission for a vote. Kuenzli said she thinks the house is charming and quirky, and if the Commission can accept what it just accepted over on Ronalds Street, then this hands down is contributing to something of the character of the neighborhood. Agran said that, based on what he read in the report and what he saw in the house, the only things that are original on this building that are left are the studs and rafters on 50% of the structure. He said that the Commission talks a lot about things that change something in unrecognizable ways. Agran said this has all non-contributing windows and additions. He said the siding is all new, and the original ornamentation of the building is gone as far as is understood. Agran said that while he also finds it to be a charming building in a lot of ways, if the Commission is being asked about whether it is contributing or not, there is really nothing left HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 13 of 16 except for the skeleton of the house that is contributing, and that includes the foundation as well. Builta said he agreed. DeGraw said she finds the building to be charming. She wondered if there is a way to divide the lot so that a structure could be built behind the house. Bristow said that would have to be a separate application. She said that the lot would have to be divided side by side if it is to be divided. Bristow said the Commission needs to decide at this point if the house is contributing. She suggested the Commission look at if there is anything original at all. Swaim said that if that neighborhood were surveyed today, she does not believe this house would be called contributing by any stretch. She said there may not be very much of anything that is still historic. Trimble said that the maple flooring in the house is original. Kuenzli said there are other small cottages in the neighborhood. She said that it contributes by its scale. Swaim asked how much of the house seen today is true to what the house was a century ago. Builta stated that there are additions from the last 50 years on all four sides of the house. Swaim said the question here is if this is a contributing structure. Boyd asked if anything on the house has changed since the original designation. Bristow answered that the foundation, the bump out on the west side, and the front part has all been changed. She said that Svendsen's discussion of increasing the district was in 2004. Bristow said the survey form is from 1997. She said the surveys that discuss the house as an Italianate cottage are from 1977 and 1988. Bristow said that she does not know the exact dates of any of the other work. Swaim reminded the Commission that nothing could be built on the lot without Commission approval. She said that any structure would have to fit into the neighborhood. Bristow said the only possibilities for this house are the three listed in the memo plus the idea of someone buying the property and rehabbing it. She said there could not be anything but a single-family home on the property or two single-family homes, should the property be divided. Michaud recused herself from voting on any motion regarding this property. Swaim said she would vote that this house is non-contributing, because there is nothing there that is still contributing. Wagner, Agran, and Boyd agreed. Kuenzli said she would vote to keep this as contributing. She said that it has natural, horizontal siding, as a cottage would have had. MOTION: Agran moved to consider the property at 724 Ronalds Street as a contributing structure. Wagner seconded. The motion failed on a vote of 1-5, Kuenzli voting in favor; Agran, Boyd, Builta, Swaim and Wagner voting against (Baker, Clore, DeGraw, and Litton absent; and Michaud abstaining). HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 14 of 16 REPORTS ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect - Chair and Staff Review. 715 Linn Street. Bristow said this house in the North Side Historic District will be re-shingled and have new gutters put on. 741 Dearborn Street. Bristow said this house will have the front steps replaced. 212 South Johnson Street. Bristow said this house is being reroofed with red shingles to match existing. She said the porch roof is metal that was removed without any discussion, and it will be replaced with EPDM. 1147 Maple Street. Bristow said this house is a non-contributing structure that will be reroofed. Minor Review - Staff Review. 415 North Governor Street. Bristow said this house was discovered with non-approved railings. She said they will be redone. Bristow said the columns would not be replaced at this time, because they were there before the railing was changed. She added that the new railing will be painted and will meet the guidelines. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 13, 2016: MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's October 13, 2016 meeting, as written. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Baker, Clore, DeGraw, and Litton absent). COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Preservation Summit 2016, Recap and Information Swaim said that DeGraw was going to give her thoughts on the Preservation Summit so that will be postponed to the next meeting. 34th Annual Historic Preservation Awards Swaim reminded Commission members that the Preservation Awards will be held on January 19. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 2016 Page 15 of 16 Swaim said that the Fisk Reception was a great success. She thanked Builta for his work on this. Swaim said that Doug Jones, an archaeologist at the State Historic Preservation Office, died earlier in the week. Swaim said that Jones was instrumental in researching anything related to the Underground Railroad in the State and the abolition of slavery. She said he added exponentially to what we know about a really important period in history. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:09 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016-2017 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member NAME TERM EXP. 12/10 1/14 2/11 2/25 3/12 4/14 5/12 6/9 7/14 8/11 9/8 10/13 11/10 AGRAN , THOMAS 3/29/17 X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E O/E X X X BAKER, ESTHER 3/29/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 3/29/17 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X X X BUILTA, ZACH 3/29/19 --- --- --- --- --- X X X X X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 3/29/17 X O/E X O/E X X X O/E X X X X DEGRAW, SHARON 3/29/19 --- --- --- --- --- X X X X O/E X X KUENZLI, CECILE 3/29/19 --- --- --- --- --- O/E O/E X X X X X X LITTON, ANDREW 3/29/17 X X X X X X O/E O/E X O/E X X MICHAUD, PAM 3/29/18 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X SANDELL, BEN 3/29/17 O/E X X X X 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 X X X X X X X X X X X