Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-26 Public hearingCl,,!_. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 11'h day of August, 2008, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: An ordinance for a rezoning to amend the conditional zoning agreement to modify the concept site plan for approximately 25.16-acres of property in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 855, 911 & 1001 Highway 1 West (Wal-Mart). Copies of the proposed ordinances and resolutions are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK ~^-', r,;.~v~ ~~ ~ . L ~~ f„` \~,N Prepared by and Return to' Sara F Greenwood Hektoen Asst City Attorney 410E Washineton St Iowa City IA 52240. (319)331-5030 CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), Wal-Mart Realty Company, an Arkansas corporation, Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, a Dela are business trust and Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation (collectively, "Wal- "), SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware corpor tion, successor to RSI-Supervalu Inc., a Dela are corporation ("Supervalu"), and Staples, Inc., Delaware corporation, formerly known a Staples The Office Superstore, East Inc., a Delawar corporation ("Staples") (hereinafter, col ctively, Wal-Mart, Supervalu and Staples, "Owners"). WHEREAS, on June 13, 89, the City adopted an ordi ance rezoning from Industrial, I-1, to Commercial, CC-2, approxi tely 28.084 acres of land 1 Gated South of Highway 1 West; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 1989, e Joseph Company and the City entered into a Conditional Zoning Agreement (the "1989 CZA' which establish d certain conditions and restrictions on the owner of said 28.084 acres; and WHEREAS, the 1989 CZA was amende on Se~tember 24, 1996 (as so amended, the "1989 CZA, as amended"); and / WHEREAS, the 1989 CZA, as amended, is a o enant running with the land and inures to the benefit of all successors and assigns of the pro erty urdened thereby; and WHEREAS, Wal-Mart owns approxim ely 13.75 Gres and has the right to purchase approximately 11.41 acres of the origin 1 28.084 acres f the property burdened by the 1989 CZA, as amended, and now desires to redevelop said 2 6 acres (the "Property"), which is considered to be major entrance to Iow City; and WHEREAS, the City has a policy tq~preserve and enhance the en~anceways to Iowa City; and WHEREAS, Wal-Mart has sub tted a Concept Site Plan to the Cit that materially varies from the terms set forth in the 198 CZA, as amended, and has thus re ested the 1989 CZA, as amended, be modified by rep cing it with this Agreement with respect the Property; and WHEREAS, the Planni g and Zoning Commission has recommend approval of such modification subject to onditions related to ensuring that the Property is de eloped in a manner consistent with the Ci 's Comprehensive Plan as it exists as of the date oft is Agreement and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, paying particular attention tot aesthetics and landscaping of this ite which serves as a major entranceway to the City; ~~ WHEREAS, Io a Code Section 414.5 (2007) provides that the City may impose reasonable conditions whe land is rezoned over and above existing regulations in order to satisfy the public needs directly aused by the requested change; and 4823-4435-9938.5 WHEREAS, Owners acknowledge that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure that the Prop y is developed in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the a~c 'acent neighborhood; WHEREAS, Owners agr~e to use the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; THEREFORE, it is agreed as 1. This Agreement hereby re~aces and supersedes the 1989 CfLA, as amended, with respect to the land legally described~n Paragraph 2 herein. 2. Owners are the title holder of tAe land legally describe as follows: Wal-Mart Parcel: Lot 1 Of Final Plat Westport Plaza, Iowa City, I a, In Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6, West Of The Fifth Principal Merid' , In Johnson County, As Per Plat Of Subdivision Filed In Book 32, Page 289. Staples Parcel: Lot 2 Of a Resubdivision Of Lot 2, W tport Plaza, Iowa City, Iowa, In Johnson County, Iowa, According To The Plat Of The esubduision Recorded In Book 37, Page 264, Plat Records Of Johnson County, Iowa. '\ SuperValu Parcel: Lot 1 Of A Resubdivisio f Lot 2, Westport Plaza, owa City, Iowa, According To The Plat Of The Resubdivi 'on Recorded In Book 37, P e 264, Plat Records Of Johnson County, Iowa; Exce mg Therefrom; Commencing A The Southeast Corner Of The Westport Plaza, I a City, Johnson County, Iowa, Accordance With The Plat Recorded In Pl Book 32 At Page 289, Of The Reco ds Of The Johnson County Recorder's O ce; Thence North 00 Degrees, 51 Minutes Seconds East, Along The East Line Said Westport Plaza, 854.05 Feet To The P 'nt Of Beginning; Thence North 38 egrees 29 Minutes 03 Seconds West, 94.65 Feet, o A Point On The North Line O Said Westport Plaza; Thence South 89 Degrees 08 'nutes 37 Seconds East, Alon Said North Line, 60.00 Feet; Thence South 00 Degrees 1 Minutes 23 Seconds W t, Along The West Line Of Said Westport Plaza, 73.20 F et, To Said Point Of Beginning. 3. The parties acknowledge that the City has a policy, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, to preserve and enhance the entranceways to Iowa City and to take special care with regard to the site design of commercial establishments, including landscaping to soften 4823-4435-9938.5 the impact of the structures and lessen the effect of large parking lots. Owners agree and acknowledge this policy is reasonable, proper and appropriate under the circumstances; 4. TY~e parties agree that Highway 1 West is a major entranceway to Iowa City from the so' hwest. Wal-Mart acknowledges the City's policy concerning entranceways governs this ezoning request, therefore Wal-Mart agrees to provide certain amenities over and above ity regulations in order to lessen the impact on the surrounding area and enhance the dev opment of the entranceway to the City, said amenities are more particularly described low; 5. The developm twill substantially conform to the C ncept Site Plan (including the building elevatio s) and Landscaping Plan dated Jul 3, 2008, attached and by this reference incorpor ed herein (the "Plans"), particu rly with regard to the building location and orientat n, the square footage of gre space, the storefront landscaping, facade design, and t configuration of parki spaces. In addition to the site development standards se forth in the Iowa City ode of Ordinances, Wal-Mart agrees and acknowledges that: a. The three internal lands ed media aisles running the length of the parking lot, but not containing a sidew k, shall ave a minimum width of nine (9) feet; b. Wal-Mart shall allow the Ci to ace a public bus stop and/or shelter on the site, to be provided by and at the Ci s expense; c. Three free-standing signs s be permitted to be located as shown on the Concept Site Plan; d. The Property may be re evelope in two phases. Phase I shall include the demolition of the existi g Cub Food and Staples buildings, construction of the new Wal-Mart store, d installation o all improvements on land not currently occupied by the exi ing Wal-Mart Store. Phase II shall consist of demolition of the existing Wal- rt and installation of th final site improvements; e. Upon completi of Phase I in confo ance with all applicable City requirements, e City shall issue a temporary certificate of occupancy valid for 120 days. If ase II has not been completed up the expiration of the temporary certificate occupancy, said certificate may be extended if the Applicant has shown go d faith efforts to begin Phase II; £ Upon mpletion of Phase II in conformance with all applicable City requir ents, the City shall issue a certificate of occup cy; g. Deli ery traffic shall be routed to enter and exit the site om Ruppert Road. 6. The Pl s attached may be modified within the general paramete of the Plans, such as struct al dimensions and tree species. Any modifications departin from the Plans must and hall be subject to staff review and approval. Nothing in this greement shall be c strued to require Owners to conform to the Plans in every detai , as the Plans are tended as conceptual in nature. Neither party may intentionally digress from the Plans for any arbitrary reason. 7. Owners and the City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable 4823-4435-9938.5 conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2007), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are directly caused by the requested rezoning. 8. Owners and the City acknowledge that in the event the Property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Agreement. 9. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon recording, which shall occur upon adoption and publication of the Ordinance and the parties further acknowledge that this Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full for e and effect as a covenant with title the land, unless or until released of record by the City. In the event Wal-Mart does not pi up and pay for the building permit for the co struction of the Wal-Mart supercenter struc re contemplated on the Concept Site Plan within two (2) years from the date of Counci pproval of the Ordinance, this Agree ent and corresponding Ordinance shall automatic be released and repealed two year from the date of Council approval of the Ordinance. the event of such release and repeal, the Property shall continue to be subject to and b dened by the 1989 CZA, as ended. The parties further a owledge that this reement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, represen tives, and assig of the parties. 10. Owners acknowledge that thing in is Agreement shall be construed to relieve them from complying with all other plic le local, state, and federal regulations. 11. The parties agree that this Agr ment shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance approving this Agree en and rezoning the Property (the "Ordinance"), and that upon adoption and publicat' n of e Ordinance, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder' Office at al-Mart's expense. 12. The City acknowledges this Agreement is be g entered into prior to Wal-Mart acquiring fee title to that portion of he Property Curren owned by Supervalu and Staples. The City acknowledges and a rees that until such tim as Wal-Mart picks up and pays for the building permit for the onstruction of the Wal-M supercenter structure contemplated on the Concept Site PI n, the Property and the builds gs presently existing thereon shall be required to comply with the 1989 CZA, as amended, nd not this Agreement. Dated this day ~f , 2008. WAL-MART REALT COMPANY, CITY OF IOWA CIT ,IOWA an Arkansas corporati n By By Regenia D. Bailey, Mayor Name By 4823-4435-9938.5 Title WAL-MA REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, a De ware statutory trust By Name Title WAL-MART STORES, corporation By Name Title a Delaware SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware c~ successor to RSI-Supervalu Inc., a corporation By Name Title STAPLES, INC., a formerly known as Superstore, East Inc., a corporation By Name corporation, The Office corporation Title Marian K. Karr, Approved by: ~ City Attorney's ty Cl~errk ~/ C7 2~/~? l~J~~"" ~~sv ice ~/~~~d~" 4823-4435-9938.5 WAL-MART ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS State of Arkansas;~ounty of Benton ss: This instrumeri~.,was acknowledged before me on the 2008 by `., , as an Arkansas corporation, old behalf of the corporation. day of , of Wal-Mart Realty Company, Notary Publi~'in and for the State of Arkansas My corrXfilission expires: State of Arkansas, County of Benton ss: `~ This instrument was acknowledged be ore eon the day of 2008 by , as of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, n behalf o he trust. Notary Public in My commission State of Arkansas, County of B This instrument was a 2008 by , Delaware corporation, on be al ss: before me on the as f of the corporation. for the Mate of Arkansas day of of Wal-Mart ores, Inc., a Notary Yubhc m and for the Mate of Arkansas My commission expires: 4823-4435-9938.5 OTHER OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of ,County of This instrument ~ 2008 by corporation, on behalf of ss: acknowledged before me on the day of , as of Staples, Inc., a Delaware Notary Public in and for the State of My commission State of County of This instrument was acknowledged 2008 by , as corporation, successor to RSI-Supervalu corporation. me n the day of , of Supervalu Inc., a Delaware .Delaware corporation, on behalf of the lic in and for the State of My commission expires: CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKN State of Iowa, County of Johnson, On this day of for the state of Iowa, person personally known, who, being respectively, of the City of Ion the seal attached thereto is th the said Mayor and City voluntary act and deed of id EMENT: 2008, before me, th undersigned, a notary public ial y appeared Regenia D. Bailey d Marian K. Karr, to me b me duly sworn, did say that they e the Mayor and City Clerk, a City, Iowa, executing the within an foregoing instrument; that seal of said corporation by authority o its City Council; and that erk acknowledged the execution of id instrument to be the corporation, by it and by them voluntari executed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: 4823-4435-9938.5 S ~ Marian Karr From: Grazyna Kochanska [grazyna-kochanska@uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 9:45 AM To: Council Subject: Walmart's application Dear Sir or Madam, As a long-time (17 years) resident of Iowa City, I would like to strongly urge you to grant Walmart's application for extension of one of its local stores. I understand this application is going to be reviewed again at the meeting today. Walmart provides a great selection of products at excellent prices, and it is a particularly valued venue for families with modest incomes. Any trip to Walmart reveals genuine, spontaneous, and broad diversity. You see UI students, staff, and faculty, from undergraduates to graduate students, to research assistants, to senior professors. Walmart is a truly democratic marketplace. You see families of all ethnic backgrounds, and all income and education levels. During my first years in US, Walmart was one of the few places where I was able to purchase a good selection of products, despite the fact that my income was below poverty level. In fact, multiple studies have shown that Walmart can provide huge yearly savings to people who need them most. Walmart also provides extremely inexpensive prescription medications, an important concern for many families. It offers fresh and varied food, including local produce. I find arguments about Walmart "being bad for downtown businesses" misguided. Small businesses can, should, and have found their own unique niches and ways to compete for certain demographic groups of customers. Simply undercutting, by administrative decisions, any business because it is seen as competition in the free marketplace is profoundly un-American, deeply undemocratic, and against all healthy economic principles. Both consumers and companies ultimately benefit from free markets. Having grown up in a communist country (Poland), where so called "moral" or "political" principles replaced basic economic free market principles, I can attest to the ultimate misery, poverty, and utter demoralization such approach inevitably brings. Arguments about "moral inferiority" of Walmart are patronizing and ill-intentioned, and serve certain interest groups. Walmart is a good community citizen, and employer of choice for many people in US and around the world. Indeed, competition for jobs at Walmart is steep. Walmart has repeatedly shown its dedication to local communities, for example, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when it provided supplies and help when other agencies failed. But fundamentally, I believe Iowa individuals and families are perfectly able to make their own decisions regarding their choices of shopping venues. If they decide to shop elsewhere, Walmart will fail. If they decide to shop there, it will thrive, and the community will gain considerable tax revenues. Thank you for considering my opinion. Respectfully, Grazyna Kochanska Grazyna Kochanska Phone: Stuit Professor of Developmental Psychology (319) 335-2409 Office Department of Psychology, University of Iowa (319) 335-0500 Lab Iowa City, IA 52242-1407 (319) 335-0191 Fax www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Kochanska/Kochanskal.html 1 L. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the 3rd day of June, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in Emma J. Harvat Hall at City Hall of the City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider a resolution to vacate the Northtowne Parkway right-of-way, Highlander Development, Third Addition, Iowa City, Iowa. Copies of the proposed resolution are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above- mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Cy'`~ ~~E ~~i% c /a~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the 26th day of August, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk, at which hearing the Council will consider a resolution authorizing the conveyance of the vacated Northtowne Parkway right-of-way in Highlander Development, Third Addition to Southgate BP Properties LLC. Copies of the proposed resolution are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above- mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 26th day of August, 2008, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; regarding the appeal to City Council of the decision of the Historic Preservations Commission regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness to alter the roof slope when removing the built in gutters on the building located at 803 E. College Street, which appeal was filed with the City Clerk on July 21, 2008 by Mike R Wombacher. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above- mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission and Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner DATE: August 26, 2008 RE: Pertinent guidelines regarding the appeal of Historic Preservation Commission denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness to alter the roof slope when removing the built in gutters on the building located at 803 E. College Street. At its meeting held on July 10, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness from the applicant, Mike Wombacher on behalf of Rouge Rentals. The request for approval was for removing the built-in gutters and lowering the eaves on the house at 803 E. College Street. The property is designated as a contributing structure in the College Green Historic District. The work was started on the roof without obtaining a building permit or historic review. When a stop work order was given, the applicant applied for historic review and indicated that there would be no exterior change to the property. This prompted the Chair and staff to approve a Certificate of No Material Effect for the reroofing and removal/covering of built in gutters. A citizen complaint was received regarding the removal of decorative brackets on the eaves. This prompted Staff to inspect the work and it was noted that the work was not done as stated in the application for historic review. When the work was completed, the once flared eaves of the house had been straightened. This straightening resulted in the lowering of the soffits and covering of the frieze board. The space for an appropriate frieze board had been eliminated. Staff notified the applicant that the work as done was not what was approved in the Certificate of No Material Effect and would need to be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission or returned to its original appearance. By a vote of 2-4, the Historic Preservation Commission found that this alteration did not comply with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines or the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines (Section 4.11) state the following: Disallowed: Roof slope • Altering the roof slope near the gutter when covering historic built-in gutters The guidelines allow covering the built-in gutters and applying exterior gutters only if the roof slope at the gutters is not altered. In this case, the Commission found that the roof slope had been significantly altered when the built-in gutters were removed and the frieze board had been significantly covered by the new roofline. In addition, The Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines (Section 7.0) states the following: August 26, 2008 Page 2 Disallowed: • Removing 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 The HPC determined that the flair created by the built-in gutters was a significant architectural feature of the building. The applicant subsequently asked the Commission to reconsider its denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness, which the Commission did at its August 14, 2008 meeting. On an affirmative motion to grant the Certificate, and thus permit the changes, the Commission voted 4-4, and thus the motion failed. (It should be noted that at the time of the meeting it was uncertain if a tie vote was sufficient to pass the motion. However, after consultation with the City Attorney, Staff determined that a majority of votes is required to pass a motion. Since a majority did not vote in favor of the motion, the motion failed) The Applicant has now appealed to you, the City Council, to review the Commission's decision to deny the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. In deciding this appeal, Council must consider: 1) Whether HPC exercised its power and followed the guidelines established by state and city laws and; 2) Whether HPC's actions were patently arbitrary or capricious. After applying this standard of review, Council may reverse, affirm, or modify the Commission's decision. Additionally, Council may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as it sees fit, and to that end shall have the powers of the Commission in reviewing this application. Copies of the following documentation relating to the application for certificate of appropriateness for 803 E. College Street are attached to this memorandum: Application for Historic Review for the reroofing; Certificate of No Material Effect; Staff Report and accompanying photographs; Resolution/Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness and accompanying letter; Memorandum from Staff to HPC regarding Reconsideration; Statement from Contractor; Minutes of July 10, 2008 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting; Minutes of July 24, 2008 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting; Draft minutes of August 14, 2008 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting; and Letter from Mike Wombacher requesting an appeal. Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City For Stof~'Use: _~ _D Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation Date submitted ....~....... of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation """"""""""""""""~""" Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: ~ Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgov.org/HPhandbook ^ Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the secondThursday of each month. During ^ Major, review the summer months,the HPC may also meet on the fourthThursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. ^ Intermediate review ^ Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) .. Q . ~...~ .~ ...................................... Owner ~ ~. ~. "" .... Phone ................... ~~(~............. ......J.........`...... ............... ®~ ®_ T Address r ~ ~`- ~ e ~ r~ .......y33 ...........%~. .........' ............. . ......~.~~lr.!!G..~..C~ ......1 ..............zip-5~.~~...j~.~.0 email ............................ .......................^ ............... ... ~ 'l.,... ....... . ~ ' .... ...... ...~ ~. .~.... , ................... . Contractor ~~ 1~'.'.~ ~~ ~~~5" Address ................. ................. ..................... ...........................`..._"_. ~~.~.~ ..'.......'. `..........zip ................,.. Phone .............................................................................................. email ................................................................... ....................... Consultant ...~~G~I.Z.~.....f~~.C.^<~~ ................... Address .......................................................................................... ......................>>..//~~......................................................zip ................... ................................... Phone..~`1.....~ ~~©..'S.. ................................~../r~.i... ..~.................~~`~. ~...... emai I..~ ............... ,.~~.~........~.... ~....................~!d Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Q Site plan 0 Floor plans Q Building elevations Q Photographs Product information Other .............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Inform~~~ ~ i/~~ ~ ~, / Address of property ............... ................,...............,.......,............,................... .................................................... ...., k. ................................ Use of property..... rr ~u`~? ......................~ ........................... Date constructed (if known) ............................................................... Historic Designation This property is a local historic landmark OR Q This property is located in the: Q Brown Street Historic District Q College Green Historic District East College Street Historic District Longfellow Historic District Summit Street Historic District Q Woodlawn Historic District Q Clark Street Conservation District Q College Hill Conservation District Dearborn Street Conservation District Q Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing Q Noncontributing © Nonhistoric Project Type Alteration of an existing building (ie, siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) Q Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) Q Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) Q Construction of new building Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance Other ...................~00.~....................................................... Project description ;~~~~~~J ,~ .......................................................... ..~%rt/ ....... ~ j1... ~e......... ~.Q..~~z.'........................................................................................ .................................................... .............. i t f,. / ~ ;........................ .~ ~ ~.. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Materials to be used ........................................................ cve~s...................~..~...........~`~.........~i~~"~......1~...................................................................... ~ ~ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..............................................................~o i1.. ~............................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ I~~wa City Historic Preservation Commission Cit'v I f.tll, 410 I~: ~V'ashintt~m titn•ct, l~~wa (:itc. I:A. ~''2-10 CERTIFICATE OF NO MATERIAL EFFECT 803 E'. College Street On June 4, 2008, the Chair of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission and staff conducted a review and approved a Certificate of No Material Effect for the proposed repair and restoration of the structure at 803 East College Street, a contributing property in the College Green Historic District. The Chair and staff approved the project that involves repairs to the roof, including 1. removal and replacement of the roof shingles; 2. removal and replacement of the porch roof shingles; 3. removal of built-in gutters and replacement with external gutters; and 4. repair and reinstallation of all decorative brackets if removed. Also included in the project is the removal of metal porch piers on the back porch and replacement with painted decorative cedar posts that are similar to the posts on the front of the property. The Chair and staff found that the proposed project is consistent with the guidelines and does not detract from the historic character of the property. The proposed project will have no material effect on the exterior appearance of the property, provided the repair/replacement work carried out as stated above. The project, as presented in the application, is approved, as provided in City Code Section 14-8E-2. Any additional work that falls under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission that is not specified in this certificate will need a separate review. Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Chair Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner Iowa City Planning & Community Development ~b•~s•~a Date Staff Report Historic Review for 803 E. College Street Structure: Contributing Classification: College Green Historic District Jury 3, 2008 The applicants, Rouge Rentals, are requesting approval for a demolition and alteration project that was done without approval at 803 E. College Street, a contributing property in the College Green Historic District. The portions of the project that need approval include the removal of two chimneys, alteration to the roofline, and replacement of vertical siding with horizontal siding. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.5 Siding 4.7 Windows 4.11 Gutters and Downspouts 4.12 Chimneys 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments This house was built in 1883 and retains many of its original features, such as paired eave line brackets, pedimented gables, spindle work, and turned porch posts. It combines Queen Anne details and house form with Classical and Italianate elements. The previous owner of this property did very little maintenance and the property was in a state of decline. The new owners, Rouge Rentals, are making improvements. The porch has been repaired and straightened, several decorative original windows have been repaired, and original decoration hid by asbestos siding has been revealed. There are a few projects happening on the house currently, which have been approved by Chair and staff as Certificates of No Material Effect, such as the front porch repairs, reroofing, and rear porch post replacement. Chimneys The applicant has removed two chimneys and is now seeking approval for this work. The chimneys were original to the house and were visible from both streets. However, according to the applicant the chimneys were not structurally stable, as most of the mortar had deteriorated and was missing. Amason had been to the property to inspect the chimneys and stated that there was very little mortar left on the bricks of the chimneys and the chimneys could not just be tuck-pointed, but needed to be completely rebuilt. Later, a roofer fell into one of the chimneys and caused most of the bricks to fall into the house. The guidelines allow for the removal of portions of a building that are structurally unsound. However, they also disallow for the removal of any historic architectural features, such as a porch, chimney, bay window, dormer, bracket, or decorative trim that is significant to the architectural character and style of the building. The chimney is a historic architectural feature, but the removal may have been needed. Although the retention of the chimney would be ideal, the previous owners neglected maintenance, resulting in an unsound chimney. In the past the Commission has allowed the removal of a chimney in special circumstances. Roof and Frieze Board The applicant would also like approval to change the roofline and lower the soffits on the structure. The removal of the built-in gutters was approved by a Certificate of No Material Effect to be done at the same time as the reroofing, provided there was not a change in the exterior appearance of the house, as indicated in the application. When the work was done, the roofline was straightened at the eaves. This caused the soffits to be lowered into the frieze board, leaving the tops of the windows of the second level just under the soffits and eliminating the space for an appropriate frieze board. The guidelines allow for the covering of the original built-in gutters only if the roof slope is not altered. The roof slope was altered slightly at the location of the built-in gutter. The applicant has reinstalled some of the decorative brackets below the new roofline, but no frieze board has been installed. Staff has identified three options for how this might be addressed. 1. removal of the new roof and reconstruction to make the new roof match the historic roof. 2. reinstall the brackets without a frieze board as has been done 3. install a frieze board of the same dimensions as the original frieze board under the soffits along with the reinstallation of the decorative brackets. This would nearly return the roof to its original appearance. Outbuilding The applicant would also like approval for the removal of the vertical siding on the outbuilding and replacement with horizontal siding. The original horizontal wood siding of the structure is 5 3/8" exposure shiplap siding with a 1 3/4" channel or cove. The new horizontal siding is 6 1/8" with a 5/8" channel. Also, present on this portion of the outbuilding was an awning style window. The applicant has replaced it with a sliding vinyl window that matches other windows on the first floor of the outbuilding, which were installed by a previous owner. The applicant has been told that vinyl windows are not allowed in historic districts. The applicant would like to keep the vinyl window or have the option to fill in the window opening rather than replace the new window with a wood window. The guidelines state that siding should be repaired with new or salvaged siding that matches the historic wood siding. The vertical siding was not original to the structure. It is likely that there was originally a barn or garage door on this portion of the out-building and it was filled in with vertical siding at some point. Staff confirmed the applicant's claim that siding with dimensions similar to the wood siding on the rest of the outbuilding is not readily available and would have to be specially milled. In Staffs opinion, given the unavailability of the shiplap siding of the correct dimensions and that the area was probably not originally sided, this siding material is appropriate on the outbuilding. The guidelines do not allow for vinyl windows in historic districts, unless vinyl windows are original to the building. The original windows in the outbuilding are wood double hung and are present on the second level. The guidelines do not address filling in of window openings, however since this window is probably not original, its retention is not critical. Additional work under historic review Other work has been done that can be approved by an additional Certificate of No Material Effect. Since the property is already up for discussion by the commission staff felt that this work could be discussed now and included in the Certificate of Appropriateness. If the Commission does not feel this is appropriate, the normal CNME process can take place. The work includes: • repair/replacement of the deteriorated floor boards on the back (west) porch to match the existing floor boards • replacement of cinder block steps on back porch with wood steps to meet building code • replacement of kitchen window on primary structure with a wood or metal-clad wood double-hung window repairs to the existing windows. All windows will be replaced in their original locations and retain the original appearance after the repairs Summary The Commission needs to decide what is best for this property, as well as what is best for the district as a whole. The decisions needed by the Commission include: • if the removal of the chimneys is appropriate or do one or both of the chimneys need to be rebuilt • which option is appropriate for the treatment of the roof and frieze board • if the siding choice on the outbuilding is appropriate • if the vinyl window on the outbuilding is allowed, a wood window is required, or can the opening be filled in • if the additional CNME items can be approved with this COA application Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at: hµ.W.icgov.org/HPhandbook Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the secondThursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourthThursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Applicant Information (Please check RRrimary contact person) 'KO~I~C, ^ Owner .'~5p..1~G~"~7'~`~.......4./.".~t..ILe.~ Phone.... ~q~...1..~....~7~~.'..~...(.~~ ..................................... Address ...6.~/`..{....~''.:~..~.`.!."~....~~~...~...`L....~........... ....I.S~4n2.F,,...1.~...~..a......~.(~ ........................zip..~.~~r.~C) e m a i I ..................~ . , .. `.........................~ .[ ................. ............................ . ^ Contracto~(r ..L1v.0.k.t'~-...•.[•~~er~ ......:......................: Address .....I~.a~Vt.P:-....~....f'.A ............................................ ..........................................................Q......................zip ................. Phone... 3.1..~..'..~ 6.~..'...~.~.~..( ............................................ email ............................................................................................. ^ Consultant .............................................................................. Address .......................................................................................... .................................................................................zip ................... Phone .............................................................................................. emai I ................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ^ Site plan ^ Floor plans ^ Building elevations Photographs ^ Product information ^ Other .............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. For Staff Use: Date submitted ...,..Q..(a. ~..L.~.~..a..~'z .................. ^ Certificate of No Material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness ^ Major review ^ Intermediate review ^ Minor review Property Information Address of property.........~U~...~....1_.U.l.l~~e.,y?^t............ Use of ro ert //~~ // .....-~ rte.-{-~- .......................... P P Y.........t..P.l.:~t4 .................... Date constructed (if known) ............................................................... Historic Designation ^ This property is a local historic landmark OR ® This property is located in the: ^ Brown Street Historic District College Green Historic District East College Street Historic District ^ Longfellow Historic District ^ Summit Street Historic District ^ Woodlawn Historic District ^ Clark Street Conservation District ® College Hill Conservation District Dearborn Street Conservation District ® Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing Noncontributing ^ Nonhistoric Project Type ^ Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) © Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or- similar) Construction of new building ® Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance Other .............................................................................................. J f ~ ~ f.. Project description nn ..................!:~,e,rva..A. J w~..... ~?~.......C~i.~a rl.~ ~..'~............../...!!1~,.....C.,.In,.n..-c..~-~. ~..... ca..~..~........4,,..~t..Saau,.M...~................... ..................~..~?..~.\,u..~.$~~~. ~.................I`.~,..-t'.~n..<„~......-[.4~.,o~r. ~.......r..,~..~~+.~..~~~:~... ~-tn..e......l.t~-:~n..,rt.~. ~f...,....7t.~'1.1~... ...................~1.'.-..C.w..~!~.~":........~.,,.7 c~z,s....d........~; t. 4. ~........~? ..... ~.°:~.`r.~..~...~.-1..~......~-G1-~.........G,....,.s-a!~r.~~.~/......................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..... ................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ CFN 259-1357 IOWA SITE INVENTOR`S FGRM Survey ID Number IOW-028 11/26/90 Database ID Number _ _ ocation and Functional Information R & C: Number _ ___ __ 1. Historic Name(s) _______ 2 . Common Name (s ) house _______ __________ 3. Street Address 803 E. College St. _________ 4. City Iowa City Vicinity [ ] 5. County Joi~nsorr _ 6. Subdivision Original Town 7. Block(s) 1 8. Lot(s) 4 - 9. Legal Description: (If Rural) Township Range Section Quarter of Quarter Description 10. Historic Function(s) Single family residence 11. Current Function(s) multi-family residence _ of Code 12. Owner Jean Joy Kistler Kendall Phone q (319) 37-9211 Address 2585 Bluffwood Lane City/State Iowa City, IA Z1P 52245 BHP Sources: Cty. Resource [] NABS [] Photo [] NR [] Tax Act [] Grants [] DOE [] R&C [] (Plat Map) ~ ~ (Sketch Map) IONA !NE Lucas t~ N Roll/Frame 5 / 18 Photographer: Matt Laufenbe_ rg__ Intact except for asbestos View: North front, East side: looking SW shingle siding. Fire escape has Location of Negatives: been added to the front. Appears minimally maintained, and little changed since the 1981 inventory. Contributing structure N (Integrity Notes) East College (Source: Iowa City planning dept., 1990 ra / ~xpd ; g;l~ }, ;d~4~~ r 'fly; R r~ _ k ~ it ~ c~.~ z L '."ik ~_:'. .c ' . _. ~.:~,a~ ; ~!~ ~...~ -~ _ r ~: , .~~ ~~ =.~. ~, :j 51 ' ~~ h~i ~ S. i !~ a~aii ~lf~~~~~~~~ ... ~~~ t u A 'R 4' ~ +~ .d i ~ ~: b ~~, r ., t _ ,r ,• ~ p ~J _ , 4 V f ~ A ~~ p„ ~'-':. z; GGG ,,, ~ ~> ~~~ ~ x ~ , ' !' ,~ r'hs 9 ~\ F / \ \+. ~~: ` '~ I. ~~ ~4~ ~, t~ L ~.I Y l ~ i t Y ~ f ~:~ :~.: _ ~,~~~, F~ 1)F J ~ _- r_. r ~ 7 j ,~~ ~ ~1 ~ - ~ f 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 w I-- ~ r"_. / / ! i J ' 1 ,/ ~ ' :~~ ~~ ~ ~` t~ ~, ~ t ., ~~ t ~~ r' sn~f r kr a,''. 4- Kzr; Ai 4 s f.~ ~ ~ +: I r ~, ` i 1 +f '- r ~ti ,;, ~ ~~ -, ~ ~ ~: $ 4 r ~ ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ r 9 '.,,~~~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 ..u ,...._, . w , i ~;: ly q-r ~ - T ~ ,~ . N ~ '1 1 Y ~, Y ~7 In ~ ` 1' El~~;. .~ 1 ~ ~~L ~ ~~ .~ ~ ` i4 ~2 , ~~ ~, ~ ~~ r.~ • ~ ~~, ~~ ~~ 4 ~ ~ .. ._. i `1 1 1 . .P .- . _. _.. ,....... _.. ~'f. I'~ ~ x''~~~ {/~~ka, r:. ~, ~ `~~ ~; , . ,:. t ~.~ ~` ,_ }, ~='' 5 it .,_.. - _ - ~. ~. j, _ 1 E-.~ - + - ``~ 3 ~ ~ ~1 '1: _ _ - i .~~ ti. ~; _i T~ , ~~ 1 2 ~~ ~ s July 14, 2008 Dear Owners of 803 E. College Street: Hl;~lO11C ~~1'CS(`1"V~tt1Ot'1 CO111T111`w~+1C)I~ t-11~ 11.111. ~II!~ I~ \\.i~hins~lun ~licci. I~,~•,.i tin I ~~ Your application was reviewed at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting on July 10, 2008. The Commission discussed your projects in great detail and came to a decision based on what is best for the property and the College Green Historic District, as well as what upholds the guidelines of Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. The Commission approved the removal of the chimneys, the use of the horizontal siding, and the filling in of the north window on the outbuilding if you do not want to replace the vinyl window with a wooden window that meets the guidelines. The Commission also approved several other alterations, such as the repairs to the rear porch, replacement of the kitchen window with a wood or metal-clad wood window, and repairs to the existing windows. The Commission denied your application for the alteration to the roofline and the lowering of the eaves. They determined that the flared eaves of the roofline are a defining architectural historic feature of the house. The Commission is requiring that the roof be redone to match the historic appearance, including repair/replacement of the frieze board and decorative brackets. The guidelines state that when built-in gutters are covered or removed, the roof slope near the gutter cannot be altered. This is the basis for the denial. The Commission appreciates the work you have done on the house and is happy to see the investment in a property that has been in disrepair for sometime. The Commission does understand that these undertakings can be quite costly and has asked me to inform you of possible financing mechanisms. There are federal and state tax credits available for historic income producing properties. Since 803 E. College Street is now functioning as an apartment building, it could qualify for these credits. I have included some information about the programs and I would be willing to help you determine if your project qualifies, as well as help you apply for the credits. I would also like to make you aware of the Salvage Barn (http://www.ic-fhp.org/salvagebarn.html). The Salvage Barn is a place where you can get historic materials that have been salvaged from other historic properties. Often materials can be obtained for a fraction of what it would cost to buy it new. If you have any questions contact me at 356-5243 or Christina-kuecker@iowa-city.org. Sincere) , ristina Kuec r Associate Planner, City of Iowa City Enclosures PCD\1 HislPreslHPCdocumentsllnfo Mailings\Letter to owner 803 E. College i~~ >~1. 1 I~~., ^~~ - ~' 19 2 -- ~ ~~ -.~_,~_ ~~ ~ ~ .=iii ~.-~_ ~~1StC}1'tC. ~ 1~~t 1'~'.lfl(?1"1 ~t)Il1t1l1S";ltilt ~~ a_ <~~ -a_. s I I.~II, III' I \ ~i~~~ i i I~,~~, RESOLUTION DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 803 E. College Street A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held at the City Hall on July 10, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Pamela Michaud, James Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, and Alicia Trimble. By a vote of 2-4 (Baker, Baldridge, Ponto and Trimble voting no), the Commission denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration project carried out at 803 E. College Street, a contributing propert}~ in the College Green Historic District. The Commission denied the Certificate for the alteration of the roofline, specifically the change in slope at the location of the built-in gutters, which caused the eaves to be lowered. The Commission found that the flared-edge is a defining architectural feature of this house and the removal significantly changes the appearance of the house. The Commission found that the alterations do not comph~ with the Guidelines. The guidelines disallow the alteration of the roof slope near the gutter when covering or removing historic built-in gutters. The Commission found that the guidelines were not met in the work that was started ~~nthout permit. A Certificate of No Material Effect was issued on June 5, 2008, when the application stated there would be no change in the etterior appearance. AY~hen the work was completed, the roofline had been altered and the eaves lowered. The Commission, by a vote of 5-1 (Swaim voting no), is requiring that the roof be returned to its original appearance, as intended by the previously approved Certificate of No Material Effect issued on June 5, 2008. The original frieze board is to be repaired or replaced and the decorative brackets reinstalled. The new roof should maintain the appearance of the original, historic roof. The decision may be appealed to the Ciry Council, who will consider whether the Commission has etiercised its powers, and followed the guidelines established by law, this article of code, and shall determine if said commission has acted in a manner that was arbitrary or capricious (Iowa City Code, Article 14-4C-7G). "l o appeal, a written letter requesting the appeal must be filed with the City Clerk no later than 10 business days after the date of this resolution. ~~---~~t ,,.°'"- James Into, Temporary Chair "~ Iowa ity Historic Preservation Commission vChristina Kueck~r, Associate Planner Iowa City Planning & Community Development 0'1 ~ ~V ~~Q~ ,-,- Date S:APCD\i_IIistPres\1_Historic Review\1 Major\2008\803eCollegeCOA_RD.doc 1~~~~~a (;n~~ Historic Preservation Commission ~.itt []all, 11n I~. A\.t:hiit~nm ~ucrt, I~~wa ~.itc. I.A. ~'3}(j MEMORANDUM Date: August 11, 2008 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner Re: 803 E. College St -Reconsideration This project was first reviewed at the July 10 meeting of the Commission. At the time, the Commission denied an application to alter the roofline at the location of the built in gutters. At the July 24 meeting, the applicant asked the Commission to reconsider the application, as he was unable to attend the July 10 meeting. The Commission approved the reconsideration. The applicant started the work on the roof without a obtaining a building permit or historic review. When a stop work order was given, the applicant applied for historic review and indicated that there would be no exterior change to the property. This prompted the Chair and staff to approve a Certificate of No Material Effect for the reroofing and removal/covering of built in gutters. When the work was completed, the once flared eaves of the house had been straightened. This straightening resulted in the lowering of the soffits and covering of the frieze board. The space for an appropriate frieze board had been eliminated. The guidelines allow for the covering of the original built-in gutters only if the roof slope is not altered. The roof slope was altered at the location of the built-in gutter. In the original staff report, staff indicated three possible options to address the roof. 1. removal of the new roof and reconstruction to make the new roof match the historic roof 2. reinstall the brackets without a frieze board as has been done 3. install a frieze board of the same dimensions as the original frieze board under the soffits along with the reinstallation of the decorative brackets. At the July 10 meeting, the Commission decided the option that upheld the guidelines, was most appropriate for the house, and best for the district was option 1. When reconsidering this application, Staff advises the Commission not to be arbitrary or capricious. If an exception to the guidelines is made, an appropriate reason should be sited in order not to create a negative precedent. Staff has provided summaries of four projects in which the Commission discussed the changing of roof slopes. The dates of the meetings and pages of the minutes are noted. The applicant has provided a statement from the contractor stating the reasons the roof slope was changed. Please refer to the July 10 staff report and packet fox more information on this property. Aug 04 08 10:54p Nathan Yoder 319-656"3929 p•1 YOC~' ~Ol~f~~~ ~t ROOM >ph'a~'~~in'Si, Si~Si. ~ RArlriwdeli'>rg ~~~~~ To whom it may concern, 8/4/08 We changed the built-in gutters to a pitch roof due to the severely rotten wood. To rebuild the gutters would have taken too much money and time, plus possibly needed to be redone In ten years. Having added pitch to the roof wilt eliminate leakage into the watts, thus preNentin$ decay and black mold. I do not feel it would be wise at all to put in built-in gutters, therefore am NO'S wining to change '-t. Sincerely, Nathan Yoder r _ ~ ~ f_ v j/ Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 3 McDonough said that the garage for 502 Clark Street would be side by side to this garage. He said that he has talked to the neighbor about having a joint retaining wall. Swaim said that she looked at the property and feels that if the garage were in the front, someone would not see it from the street. She said that the house in the front and that house's garage would block the view. Ponto said another consideration is that the guidelines say there should not be a garage in the front yard. He said that assumes that the front yard is between the house and the street, but that isn't the case here. Ponto said this is a real exception to the intent of the guidelines. McDonough stated that where the front steps are currently located, he can make it to be a quaint side door that goes out the garage, into the steps, and up the deck and then continue on with a sidewalk out to the back deck. Kuecker commented that the applicant will be returning with designs for the garage and the paving for approval. She said this application is for approval of the location. Baker asked if the steps need to be included in the language of the motion, since that is part of the application. McDonough said that would be located on the front porch. Baker said that one could just say as proposed. Ponto asked if the sliding door is off the table and is anon-issue. McDonough confirmed this. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 502 '/Z Clark Street, as proposed. Baldridge seconded the motion. Baker said that because of the uniqueness of this scenario and this being such a landlocked plot with the garage fairly hidden from the street, this is a reasonable exception. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 803 East College Street. Kuecker said that the applicant was unable to attend this meeting. She said there are three prima issues with this application. Kuecker said that three things were done to this property without a permit. Kuecker said that this property is at the corner of Lucas and College Streets in a fairly prominent location. She stated that until recently, the house was in a state of disrepair needed a lot of work. Kuecker said the owner is now working on the repair of the property. Kuecker said the first item concerns the fact that the two historic chimneys have been removed from the house, and the applicant would like approval for that removal. She said the applicant has stated that the chimneys were in bad condition, as a mason inspected the property and said that the chimneys could not just be tuck pointed but would have to be removed and rebuilt. Kuecker said the applicant has also stated that a roofer then fell into one of the chimneys, and the chimney fell into the house. She said that at that point the applicant authorized the removal of the chimneys from the house. Kuecker said that the second item relates to the roof and frieze board. She said that the reroof and removal of the building gutters were approved by a certificate of no material effect, provided there would be no change in the external appearance of the building, such that the roof would be configured in such a way that the roof kind of kicks or flares out at the end. Kuecker said the applicant had indicated that it would not change in appearance, but when it was reroofed, the roofline was straightened, causing the soffits to be lowered. She said that there had been about one foot of space between the roof and the top frames of the windows to allow for appropriate frieze board and brackets. Kuecker said that now there is no space for that. She added that the brackets have been retained, and some of them have been rebuilt. Kuecker said that staff has identified three possible ways to deal with this situation. She said that one method would be to require the applicant to take off the roof and repair it back to its original look. Kuecker Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 4 said the second option would be for the applicant to do what he is doing here, and the third option would be to install a frieze board behind the brackets. She said it would break at the windows, but it is a valid possibility and would return the appearance of the roof closer back to its original appearance. Kuecker said the third issue concerns the outbuildings. She said there is an old, two-story barn on the property and noted that one vinyl window was there prior to purchase by this owner. Kuecker showed the location where vertical siding had been removed and replaced with horizontal siding. She said that it does not match the historic siding in dimension. Kuecker said the applicant has indicated that he was unable to find this sort of siding, and Kuecker agreed that she was also unable to find that type of siding. She said that it could be milled, but it is not readily available. Kuecker said the owner would like approval for the siding that he has already installed. Kuecker also pointed out a window that the applicant replaced with a vinyl window. She said she had pointed out to him that vinyl windows are not allowed in historic districts. Kuecker said the owner would like approval to either leave the vinyl window or fill in the opening and side it with the same siding. She said that more than likely that end of the outbuilding was a barn door or garage door, and the window would not have been original to the building. Kuecker said that there are a few other things that are approvable by a certificate of no material effect, but since the Commission is discussing this property, those things could be approved at the same time. She said that these items include replacing the floor boards on the back porch, building wood stairs on the back porch, replacing the kitchen window with a wood or metal clad double-hung window, and repairs to the existing windows provided that the same windows are placed back into the original locations. Kuecker said the Commission therefore needs to decide what is best for this property and for this neighborhood. She said the Commission must decide if the chimney removal is appropriate or if the chimneys will need to be rebuilt, which option is appropriate for the treatment of the roof and frieze board, if the siding choice for the outbuilding is appropriate, if the vinyl window is to be allowed on the outbuilding or a wood window should be required or the opening could be filled in, and if the traditional certificate of no material effect items can be approved with a vote by the Commission. Ponto suggested the Commission discuss each item individually. McCallum said that this property is located right next to his property. He said that although he knows the owner has not met the letter of every standard as one would like on a deal like this, it has been a very pleasant experience having him come in and clean things up. McCallum said the new owner has really straightened up the porch. He asked the Commission to work with the owner as much as possible. McCallum said he is pleased with what the owner is doing and said that the owner is totally turning that building around. McCallum stated that given what the owner had to start with, he is taking this in the right direction. Regarding the chimneys, Michaud said that at one time she replaced a chimney with astraight-up chimney, and it cost $1,500. She guessed that it would be about $4,000 to put two chimneys back where they were. Michaud asked if the fireplaces were workable. McCallum said that he did not think they have ever been workable on that house, especially since it was built in the 1800s. Ponto said that if chimneys are an architecturally major part of the building, the guidelines say work should not be done that, "...removes prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character of the building." He said that the Commission would need to decide first if the chimneys were prominent and second, if they were important to the architectural character of the building. Michaud said that that if this were an arts and crafts building or earlier, and there were a full chimney profile on the house, that would be one thing. She said it is too bad they are not there any more, but he had kept the more prominent architectural features, such as the eyebrow in the front gable. Swaim said there is less awareness among the public about chimneys being an issue, and she didn't really know it either until this last year. She said that is one issue where there are ways for the Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 5 Commission to get that information out, although people are starting to catch on regarding porches and windows. Ponto said that after the tornado there were several chimneys that were down. He commented that the Commission required a couple of them to be rebuilt, because they were important to the architectural character of that particular building. Ponto stated that there were also several others that the Commission said were no big loss comparatively. He said that the chimneys that Commission felt were not a big loss were mostly just the straight ones with no enhancements. Ponto said that therefore in the past, the Commission has considered this issue on a case by case basis. Swaim said that when she looked at the house earlier in the day, she tried to imagine what it would look like with chimneys. She stated that she wished that the chimneys had been repaired and saved. Swaim said there are other interesting things about the house near the roof that are now much more evident than they were before, so it is not as if there are not great things to look at near the roof so that she did not feel the loss of the chimneys is an incredible loss. Baldridge asked if is correct to assume that it is not possible to put a dummy chimney on the roof. Kuecker said that it would require some structural work on the interior of the building. She said that there would have been structural work present, and she did not know how much of that was left on the interior. Baldridge asked if there was anything left of the old chimneys. Kuecker did not know. MOTION: Swaim moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness to allow the removal of the two chimneys from the house at 803 East College Street. Michaud seconded the motion. Trimble said it seems that in the past the Commission has allowed demolition of chimneys, but a lot of those decisions were based on whether or not the chimney could be seen from the front of the house. Ponto stated that the guidelines use the word "prominent," and this particular location is prominent. He said that those chimneys were historical architectural characteristics of the building to him. Ponto stated that the Commission is supposed to consider this as if the chimneys were still standing and this is a request to remove them. He said that on the other hand, the fact that the owner is doing a lot of really good things with this property is even more architecturally significant to him, which makes this a difficult decision. McCallum said that he believes the owner has invested more than $100,000 in this house, exclusive of the purchase price. The motion carried on_a vote of 3-3 with Baker, Ponto, and Trimble voting no. Ponto said that it is important to discuss each item separately because each has individual sticking points that need to be reiterated in the motions and the minutes. Regarding the roof and frieze board, Ponto stated that the guidelines discuss that it is disallowed to alter the roof slope near the gutters when covering built-in historic gutters. He said that certainly then one can cover built-in gutters, but the roof slope cannot be altered in that case. Ponto stated that part of the reason for that guideline is that the shape of the roof and the height of the soffit above the windows changes. Ponto said that as far as precedents are concerned, after the tornado, there was a house on Iowa Avenue that did not quite match this situation, but the roof shape was changed, and the Commission did require that it be changed back to the original. Baker said that it was afour-square that originally had a flare, but that was removed when the rebuilding was done. Ponto said the argument was that the flare was an important architectural feature of the house. He suggested that the Commission look at this issue in terms of its guidelines and also with respect to the architectural importance of this particular house. Swaim said that she sees some merit in the third option, putting the frieze board in the same direction to run up to the window, with the brackets on top of that. She said there still would be a frieze board there , but it would not be above the windows, but there would be something for the brackets to be on. Michaud said that she also thinks that would be a good way to deal with this. She said that when you put that back in, if that would work, it shouldn't be quite as deep, because if it comes too far down it could look strange. Kuecker suggested that this go to the bottom of the brackets, perhaps ten to twelve inches. Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 6 Ponto said that it does look kind of funny to have the brackets on the siding. Michaud agreed and said that the brackets are very important. MOTION: Michaud moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the roof as it is and the installation of the frieze board and bracket as listed in option three as proposed by staff. Swaim seconded the motion. Trimble said that although the owner is doing great work with this house, if he had come before the Commission when he was supposed to, Trimble did not believe the Commission would have approved the change in the roof flare. She said that is what the Commission is supposed to be judging this on. Baker said that that the front facade looks very different than the way it looked before. She said she appreciates what the applicant is doing on this house, but it just isn't the same. Baldridge said he appreciates the difference that this presents, having seen the older version. He added however, that there is part of him that objects to having to undo this work. Baker pointed out that the Commission is expected to judge an application on the merits as if the work had not already been done, although that is difficult to do. Swaim said that although this situation is unfortunate, she would vote in favor of the motion, as it would be a compromise with the applicant. She added that it is important for the Commission to be careful about bringing the applicant's situation into the discussion. Swaim stated that the Commission is looking at the properties in terms of their present importance and long-term importance to the community, rather than what the applicant is going through. She said although that may be a component, the most important thing is the property itself. The motion failed on a vote of 2-4 with Baker Baldridge, Ponto, and Trimble voting no. MOTION: Baldridge moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of the new roof and the reconstruction of the roof to its original configuration to match the historic roof, including the exposure of the frieze board. Baker seconded the motion. Kuecker said that because this is an income-producing property, the owner might qualify for a tax credit, based on the amount of money he has spent on the property compared to the value of the house. The motion carried on a vote of 5-1, with Swaim voting no. Regarding the outbuilding, Ponto said the Commission would need to consider the siding replacement. McCallum said that the siding that was on the building before was from the 1970s. He said that the new siding is far superior to what was there. Regarding the window, Baker said that it is so hard to justify the vinyl windows, because the Commission has told so many people no. She said her preference would be for the owner to use siding to cover that space since there was not originally a window in that location anyway. Ponto said that the Commission would obviously prefer siding to match the existing, but if that is not available, that is a good reason to him to accept something else. Michaud said she assumed that there is a window of some type on the first floor. McCallum responded that there is a window on the east side. Kuecker pointed out a second window on the outbuilding. Baldridge asked what the distinction is between the new siding and the old above it, if it is some kind of protrusion. Kuecker said that it is a difference in paint colors. McCallum said that the old siding was a four-inch vertical siding, and the red is just where someone painted above the other. Swaim said that she feels satisfied that a successful search was done by both the applicant and staff to find the same dimension of siding. She said she is therefore in favor of the siding as proposed. Swaim said that since there are adequate windows for egress, she would be comfortable with there being no window on the north side of the first floor. Ponto said the Commission could give the option of having no window or of replacement of the present window with a window that meets the guidelines. Historic Preservation Commission July 10, 2008 Page 7 MOTION: Swaim moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for the following for the outbuilding: the siding replacement and the option to close in the north side first floor window with horizontal siding, or if a window is desired, one that meets the guidelines and is subject to staff approval. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Ponto stated that there are several items that Kuecker had said could have been allowed with a certificate of no material effect, but since the property is under consideration, the Commission can just vote on these issues now. MOTION: Baker moved that the Commission approve the repair or the replacement of the deteriorated floor boards on the back (west) porch to match the existing floor boards, the replacement of cinder block steps on the back porch with wood steps to meeting the building code, the replacement of the kitchen window on the primary structure with a wood or metal-clad double-hung wood window of the same size and dimension as the existing window, and repair to the existing windows to be replaced in their original locations and to retain their original appearance after the repairs. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. ~" CONSIDER ON OF MINUTES F NE 12. 2008. ~~ "~ MOTION: Michaud moved to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2008 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: Kuecker said that the City did receive the grant to do a survey of the Manville Heights Area. She said that she and Anderson are putting together an RFP to send out and hope to have a consultant lined up by the beginning of September, which adheres to the approved timeline. Kuecker said that first the consultant will do a sort of drive through/reconnaissance survey to get an idea of where the potential boundaries could be. She said that the intensive survey, including site inventory forms and photographs of the areas designated in the first survey, would follow. She added that in this grant application, the two stages of surveying were grouped into one request to expedite the process, and this was approved. Kuecker said that she received one application earlier in the month from an owner who would like to have the Commission review the application at a second July meeting. Ponto and Michaud said that they both preferred to have a second monthly meeting when requested, especially in the summer, so that homeowners are not delayed in getting projects done before fall. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s/pcd/mins/hpG2008/7-10-08.doc MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Ponto, Victor Tichy STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Ken Duffey, Greg Duffey, John Martinek, Kevin Monson, Kirstin VanGilder, Mike Wombacher CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: C Wombacher introduced himself as one of the two owners of 803 East College Street. He said that neither ,.,...,... ,we ,.,. ,..,,,,o,- of tha 11Yl~TPrtl/ rnnirl attend the Tnly 1 nrh (nmmission meetine reeardine this property. Wombacher asked for reconsideration of the Commission's decisions and said he did not intend to do things in an improper order. He said that this property was as close to demolition as possible, because he knew of someone else who was planning to buy it. Wombacher said he bought the property, because he believes in what the Commission is doing. He said that he likes restoration and likes antiques. Wombacher said that the porch was not up to standards. He said he rebuilt the porch, exposed all the decorative shingles underneath the siding, and took out the metal posts on the back porch and replaced them with cedar decorative posts. Wombacher said he knows that the eaves on the house were a big thing; he said they were extremely rotted and actually quite unsafe. He said he did extend out and should have known they can't be that way. Wombacher said that unfortunately the contractor said that he cannot go straight out and just cover over the gutters. He said there is ice damming in the winters, and this is a flat surface. Wombacher said that it would have been a lot cheaper, and he would have loved to have done that. He said that the way it is, he spent $36,000 just redoing the roof and eaves. Wombacher said that to have them go back now, they've got it all back on, and put up flat, yes, it could be done, but what expense, he did not know, because his current contractor will not do it, and even then there will be the same problems with the ice dams. Wombacher said that one could not have that and still be structurally sound to the property. Wombacher stated that they did put in a vinyl window in front, because there was a canopy window. He said he took off the vertical siding, because it is not of the period. Wombacher said he got the siding the best he could to match front and back of the carriage house. He said he would take that window out and maybe would use the suggestion of making it look like carriage doors. Wombacher said he wanted to ask for reconsideration on the eaves, because it is just unfeasible. He said that when one looks at the property that is rotting and in disrepair, one hasn't seen very much of the total work involved -very little of the cost of repairing the building is seen from the outside. Kuecker said that in order to reconsider the motion, one of the commissioners who voted against it must make a motion to reconsider. She said that if a motion to reconsider passes, all that can be discussed is the merits of a reconsideration. Kuecker said the application would then need to be put on the next meeting's agenda to give notice, as for any other application. Wombacher said that if he is allowed to keep this as it is, he would put a frieze board under it. He said he had always intended to put the decorative brackets back up. Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 2 MOTION: Baldridge moved that the Commission reconsider the denial of a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 803 East College Street that resulted in the requirement that the roof be returned to its original configuration. Swaim seconded the motion. Swaim said she voted for the option of leaving it as it is now with the frieze board and the brackets in place. She said she wished it could be the way it was, but given the circumstances of ice dams and the expense that was already invested, she continues to think that option is the best one. Swaim said it is very hard to make these decisions when something has already been done. She said the fact that the owners followed all the other guidelines suggests that something wasn't clearly understood about the project. Baker said she also has great sympathy for the situation and the fact that this is, has been, and will be a huge expense. She said her concern is that there are other people who have done very expensive work who have come before the Commission, and the Commission has required them to change the work back. Baker said this is a slippery slope -that by agreeing to reconsider this one, it opens up the floodgates to reconsider all of them. She said it is a dangerous precedent to set. Swaim said that the difficulty here involves a communication gap. She said that the owner and staff person , do talk quite a lot in these situations but wondered if there is a beefed-up procedure that could be used. Swaim said that some of these situations are falling into that area where it's not clear. She added that so '~ many of the other features of the house are being restored that she felt one could live without this one. Baldridge said that part of it is a failure of education. He said the ability to reach the populace is difficult. Baldridge said the Commission needs to carry out its responsibility to inform the community of what needs to be done with historic structures. Wombacher asked if there is a way to notify buyers at the time of purchase. Kuecker said that when the property is in a historic district, it is a zoning consideration and should therefore come up at the time of sale. Trimble said the permit that was issued said that it would be exactly the same, so it is not necessarily a lack of education in this case. Wombacher said that he was stranded for some time in Cedar Rapids and had discussions with Kuecker on the phone. He said the question that was asked of his partner is, is there any exterior change, and his answer was no, because they didn't look at that as being a change to it. Wombacher said that if it were kept flat, the only other way was they were going to put rafters to fill in the L part, which would be the same to him. He said he wasn't changing the pitch of the roof, just extending it. Wombacher said that once the carpenter got into it, that's what he did, because that's what he saw as the only way to correct it. He had no intent of taking the chimney out and had gotten a bid of $3,400 to retuckpoint the chimneys. Wombacher said his intent was to retuckpoint the chimneys, but the one of the workers leaned on it and literally took it down, and the other one was split all the way up. He said that when they dismantled it, they dismantled it brick by brick; there was just sand in between. Wombacher said it was after the fact, three days later, that he found out they had taken it down. He said it was a safety factor for them. Kuecker said that on the original application for the roof, under exterior appearance: changes, it says none. She said the certificate of no material effect for the roof was issued based on that information -that there would be no change. Swaim said there is another layer of communication between the owner, the staff person, and then there's the contractor and the builder. She stated that the chance of everything getting conveyed down to the builder is another place where everything seems to be vague or pragmatic. Wombacher said that he is trying to fix this up. He said he has pages of things to be done from the building department, and all of a sudden, the thing is not available for a rental permit when it was a rental before, because so much has happened since they bought it, because the past inspectors obviously passed it to get rental permits. Wombacher said that from windows to storms to the fire protection to doors and hardware, Historic Preservation Commission July 24, 2008 Page 3 that it passed all those years, and all of a sudden they're getting two pages of stuff inside again. Wombacher said it's not the Commission's issue, but they are getting it from both sides. Ken Duffey stated that he has been a general contractor for 40 years, doing primarily residential remodeling and new construction. He said regarding ice dams, that he has seen an increasing amount in the last several years. Duffey said he is really familiar with built-in gutters, and if there is one design in a house of any age that is more prone than others to water incursion, it's built-in gutters. Duffey said that some of the things that have changed in the recent past that this is may be a little different than okaying other projects because of cost or whatever brings up a new current issue, which is mold. He said that when one has water incursion, one bets mold almost immediately. Duffey said that from his experience, the built-in gutters pretty much guarantee that is going to happen to a house. He said that can be seen in Cedar Rapids, where the FEMA trailers are being returned because of mold. Duffey said that he has won historic preservation awards for some of the work he has done. He said that there are just some things that have to be updated because of conditions that come up, especially mold. Downing said the Commission has allowed the covering up of built-in gutters frequently. He said when that has happened, they were covered up, but the roof still was not changed. Downing said that the profile of the roof can be maintained with a standard shingle over it. Trimble said since she has been on the Commission every time someone comes before the Commission and wants to get rid of the built in gutters they allow it. She said they have never changed the roof. Wombacher said that shingles cannot go past a certain grade; they will not be guaranteed. Downing said that one could shingle on a 3:12 with an asphalt shingle. He said that this house is probably more like an eight or ten:twelve. Wombacher said that is where they are saying he will get ice damming, because it goes under the shingle. Downing said that his house goes from athree -twelve to a twelve -twelve at the breaking point. He said one can do that because shingles flex. Wombacher said it was a misunderstanding then, and he wishes he would have known that. He said it would have been a lot cheaper. The motion to reconsider this at the Commission's next meeting carried on a vote of 5-2, with Baker and Trimble voting no. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 629 Oakland Avenue. Kuecker stated that this property contains abungalow-style house. She said the owners want to put a porch addition on the rear of the house. Kuecker showed where the porch would be located, saying that the stairs and door would be removed and a new window would be placed in the location of the door. She said that the other door would become functional again. Kuecker showed the elevations of the proposed porch. She said it would be a screened-in porch, using wood frame and metal screening. Kuecker said she considered putting this on the consent items agenda but was hesitant to do so because it is an addition. Kuecker said the owners would use a wood construction, with all the details including the brackets, barge board, rafter tails, and trim to match what is currently on the house. She stated that the siding at the gable end will be wood siding to match the siding on the house. Kuecker said that the piers and the skirt will match the front porch, and the front stairs will be made of wood with a wood handrail to meet the guidelines. She said that staff recommends approval of the project as proposed in the application. Kuecker pointed out that the piers on the back porch will be shorter than the ones on the front porch to allow for the screening. She added that they will be clad in brick to match the foundation and the piers on the front porch. Historic Preservation Commission August 14, 2008 Page 2 724 Dearborn Street. Kuecker said that this is a contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District and showed where the house is located north of Sheridan Street. She referred to a photograph in the packet of what the house used to look like. Kuecker stated that between the time the survey was done and the designation, the second story was added. She said the house used to have a hip roof, and now it has a gable roof. Kuecker said that the house has had significant alterations, even though it looks like a typical craftsman house. Kuecker said the applicant is proposing a just over 26 feet by nine foot one-story addition to the rear of the property. She said the addition has a hip roof with approximately a 3:12 slope. Kuecker said the siding is to be fiber cement board. She said that trim, porch railing, porch posts, fascia, and soffits will be wood. She said that three new double- hung windows will be installed, and the foundation is to be of concrete block. Kuecker said the guidelines do allow for additions to historic houses, provided the addition is compatible with the historic building. She said that staff finds that in general the application does meet the guidelines. Kuecker said there are currently two entryways shown coming into the mudroom: one from the porch and one from the backyard. She said that it may be more functional to only have the entry from the porch. Quade, the owner of the house, said that the fence shown in the photo would have to be moved out to the edge of the garage. She said that the point of that door is to force her dog to immediately go into the dog yard. Quade suggested having athree-quarter light door, which would look like another window from the alley if it were designed right. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of the application with the option of the owner having one entrance directly into the yard and one to the porch or only one entrance to the porch. She said that if only one entrance is desired, an additional window may be placed in the location of the door to the yard. Kuecker stated that the fiber cement board siding should have a smooth finish with a dimension to match the existing siding, all porch elements should be constructed of wood with all exposed wood to be painted, windows should be one over one double hung wood or metal clad wood windows to match the existing windows, and all handrails should be consistent with the 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails Section of the Preservation Handbook. Kuecker pointed out that if the vertical dimension is 30 inches or less, a handrail is not required. Baldridge asked about the three new double hung windows to be installed. Kuecker showed where two new windows would be located and showed on the plan where the third window would be. She said that the three other windows that are on the back of the porch are the existing windows. Ponto asked for more information about the proposed doors. Quade said that she was thinking of something like a three-quarter light, so there is more light coming in rather than a solid door. Ponto asked if it would be just one door rather than a door and a screen door. Quade said that on one of those doors she would probably want a screen door just to get more air circulation. Bunting Eubanks said that it looks very balanced from the back. She said that even though there are not three windows on the left, there is a door, which helps balance the back of the house. MOTION: Trimble moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 742 Dearborn Street, subject to conditions proposed by staff. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. C RECONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 803 E COLLEGE STREET: Kuecker stated that the Commission first reviewed this application at its July 10~' meeting. She said that at that time, the vote was four for denial and two in favor of an application to alter the roofline at the location of the built-in gutters. Kuecker said that at the last meeting, the applicant asked the Commission to reconsider the application, as he was unable to attend the July 10~' meeting. She said the Commission approved the reconsideration. Historic Preservation Commission August 14, 2008 Page 3 Kuecker said this property is at the corner of Lucas and College Streets. She said the applicant began work on the roof without obtaining a building permit or historic review. Kuecker said that when a stop work order was issued, the applicant applied for historic review and indicated there would be no exterior change to the property. She said this prompted staff and the chair to issue a certificate of no material effect. Kuecker said that when the reroofing was complete, the slope had been altered at the location of the exterior gutters, which were approved for removal or covering. Kuecker added that the applicant is now asking for approval to leave the roof as is now, with where it used to flare on the roof, straightening it out and lowering the soffit. She said the applicant has indicated that he intends to put a frieze board underneath the soffit and reinstall the decorative brackets. Kuecker showed a photograph of the roof as it is now, as well as an image from the time the survey was done showing the flare in the roof, as well as the frieze board and the brackets. Kuecker said the original staff report included three possible options to address the roof: the removal of the new roof and reconstruction to make the new roof match the historic roof; reinstalling the brackets without a frieze board, as has been done, which has been eliminated as an option; or installing a frieze board with the same dimension as the original frieze board under the soffits, along with the reinstallation of the decorative brackets. She stated that at its July 10`~ meeting, the Commission decided that option one was the one that upheld the guidelines, was most appropriate for the house, and would be best for the district. Kuecker said that staff recommends that when reconsidering the application, the Commission should not be arbitrary or capricious but needs to uphold the guidelines. She said that if an exception to the guidelines is made, an appropriate reason needs to be cited in order to not create a negative precedent and cause other applicants to do work without a permit and then request that the work be kept as it is. Kuecker said she included in the packet a statement from the roofer that says that the reconstruction the way the roof formerly was would not be possible. She said she also included a list of precedents of other times the Commission has discussed alternatives. Kuecker said that the Commission discussed a similar issue with regard to 517 Grant Street. She showed a photograph of the house as it is today. Kuecker said that the roof used to come down, and the built-in gutters were covered with a slightly different roof slope. Kuecker showed photographs of the properly at 30 South Governor, which had a roof slope alteration. She showed a photograph of the roof as it is today and the work as it was being done. Kuecker said that at 817 Iowa Avenue, a hip roof was added to what was previously a gable roof. She said this was quite a substantial alteration of the roof slope, but since this was anon-contributing property, it was not deemed inappropriate by the Commission. Kuecker showed photographs of 934 Iowa Avenue as it is today. She said that, similar to what has happened on College Street, the roof used to have a flared edge, which has been straightened out. Swaim asked if the roof had originally extended even farther out than it does currently. Kuecker confirmed this. She said that when the roof was damaged in the tornado, the owner was not certain that it could be rebuilt without crossing the property line. Kuecker referred to the house at 830 College Street, where the owner had removed the rolled edge and straightened it. She said that the Commission required the owner to put the rolled edge back on the house, because it involved the demolition of a significant architectural feature. Kuecker said these are some examples to keep in mind when considering the application for 803 College Street. Wombacher, one of the owners of the property, said that not just that but between that and the carriage house ~. alignment, he has put $36,588 just into the new roof. He said that fact that it has changed, and he explained last time, and it was his partner who actually filled out the form, was not saying that they weren't going to change it. He said that is where communication broke down, because they weren't going to change the pitch of the entire roof Wombacher said they didn't do what they did to add more room or to add a room upstairs. He said that they aren't changing room plans for that. Wombacher said they were doing it for structural purposes, to prevent the Historic Preservation Commission August 14, 2008 Page 4 deterioration of the walls, which they had because of the repeated freezing and rotting of the gutters. He said he would have loved to have just put a piece of plywood on it. Wombacher said the original bid was $7,000, so that would have saved them $29,000. Wombacher said they have done everything to this house, cosmetically, that they can do, that isn't something they had to do. He said they totally changed the porch even a8er it had already passed the building inspector and the review board. Wombacher said that even though it was done wrong, they had rails redone and they took the porch floor all the way out and replaced it. He said that they put all new boards under it, and had raised it up a level. Wombacher said they took the asbestos shingles off the front and side peaks to expose the wood shingles. He said they also took asbestos off to expose those shingles. Wombacher said that they took the vertical siding that was like paneling on the carriage house, to get as close as they could to match the carriage house. He said they did this to bring it back to what they thought it should look like and to look nicer. Wombacher said they still have a lot of issues. He said that the house looks like it is sunken two feet, that the ground and water just keeps washing down the hill. Wombacher said one can see the porch is lower than the driveway so there will be water issues. He said the plan is to take the driveway out and lower it back down so it will run back out to the street where it should be instead of through the basement. Wombacher said they took the metal posts off the back porch and replaced those with wood to match the ones on the front and replaced one third of the floor back there. He said there are just numerous things, even though the Commission is not concerned about the inside. Wombacher said that when doing this, he was concerned about the stability of the structure, and that is why they did that, to try to prevent any future problems. He said they didn't just do plywood and obviously didn't do vinyl; they did one by threes and one by fours, which take a lot longer to put up there but make it look a lot better. Wombacher said they had every intent to put the decorative corner pieces back up; they just were stopped before they got to that point. He said they are more than willing to put the frieze board on it. Wombacher said the pictures showed how the rooflines of some houses had changed. He said that obviously improved them, because they needed more room upstairs. Wombacher said that most of the properties shown down the street on Iowa Avenue changed and added more space upstairs and it was granted. He said he is not asking for that; he is just asking to let it go and he already knows how much it would cost to redo it. Wombacher said that he is not dealing with insurance money from tornado damage. Bunting Eubanks said that what she doesn't understand is why the owners didn't seek a building permit before the work was done. Wombacher said that as he explained, they were shingling and the original bid was $7,000. He said that when they got into it, those overhangs were fully rotted. Bunting Eubanks said she meant before they even started to redo the roof. Wombacher said he was not aware a person needed a permit just to shingle his house. He said they did a lot more than shingling; he understands that, but that's not what the intent was. Wombacher said it may look okay or need minor repair, but once you dig into it there is more damage. He said for example, those posts that have been redone on the porch, you couldn't even tell they were rotted, but they were rotted up inside. He said that the carpenter just did what he thought that he needed to do. Wombacher said there was no intent to hide this. He said this is on College Street, and he would not be able to hide anything about what they're doing with the roof line. Wombacher said they weren't changing the pitch of the roof but were changing the eaves, because they felt that is what they had to do. He said that quite frankly, the city building department agrees with that. Wombacher said they agree with what was done and the way it was done. Swaim asked if, regardless of the flair, the current roof extends out from the house the same as it did originally. Kuecker said that it is fairly close in line. Swaim said that the house on the Iowa Avenue that had the property line issue does look odd and truncated. She said that regardless of the flair being there or not, it looks like too small of a house with too big of a head. Swaim said that if this is extending out the same, she does not have that concern with it. She said that the lack of a flair does not concern her here because of all of the work that has been done on the house. Historic Preservation Commission August 14, 2008 Page 5 Bunting Eubanks said the Commission will need to have a good reason for whatever it decides. Michaud said she thinks that although it is not an identical precedent, the one on 934 Iowa Avenue, because of damage there and possible damage to the future gutters and things like that, she thinks that this is an appropriate solution. Downing said that he walks by this house almost everyday and appreciates what the owners are trying to do to improve the house and the character of the neighborhood. He said, however, that in reading the roofer's ]etter, he doesn't think he really met the intent of what the owner said or perhaps didn't understand it. Downing said it is fair enough that the roofer has an opinion of his own, but he says, "...he does not feel it would be wise at all to put in built-in gutters, therefore am NOT willing to change it." Downing said he did not feel the Commission is asking the owner or the contractor to put in built-in gutters. Downing said that his own house was constructed with built-in gutters, but they were covered up without altering the pitch of the roof and there have been no further problems. He said that the roof can still slope, but the slope was changed. Downing said that standard residential shingles are easily put in to make the transition, so he does not think there is a technical problem. He said he thinks it was easier to splice the rafter tails. Wombacher said it actually wasn't easier, because you have to cut them off. He said the rafters on the flat part are supporting all the way through the attic. Wombacher said they had to go inside; go upstairs into apartment three, go up in the attic to have somebody up there replace every single rafter as they were bringing it on through. He said that it sure wasn't easier; it would have been easier to put plywood over it and change the pitch. Wombacher said that it still would have been changing if you put a piece of plywood. He said this is changing the pitch a little more, but it is keeping the pitch with 95%, 90% of what the pitch is on the rest of the house. Wombacher said that's why his understanding from the contractor is that they're not changing the pitch of the roof. Downing said that the guidelines and the agreement do not refer to the pitch but talk about the roofline, which is different. Wombacher said you still change the roofline a little bit. Ponto commended Wombacher for the work that he has done. He said that 517 Grant Street is a good example in which the built-in gutters were covered over and the slight change in pitch at that point allowed drainage, but the soffit and eave height remained the same. Ponto said that one of the key factors here is that in changing the roofline, the height of the soffit was changed so that it is much closer to the top of the windows and doesn't allow the frieze board and the decorative pieces in between. Baker said that in the guidelines, in section 4.11, it says, under what is recommended, "Covering original built-in gutters and applying exterior gutters only if the roof slope at the gutter is not altered." She said that this has that. Wombacher said it depends on which side of the gutter, and if the slope comes to the gutter, then it flattens out, so it really isn't a change. He said there is still the slope going to the gutter; that's why you continue that. Downing stated that the guidelines refer to the original gutter. Wombacher said that she (Baker) is saying pitch. He said that the gutter is down here, and the pitch goes to the gutter, and that's why it makes the gutter close to the pitch, because one gets the flow of water. Wombacher said that now we've got it coming outside, then the pitch is the same pitch as what you had in here; it just so happens the flat part is sticking on over. He said that it's all a play on words, but it's true; the pitch is the same at the point of the gutter. Baker said that the roofline has been changed so that the flare is no longer there. She said that was the characteristic, architectural feature of the roof of the original house. Baker said the guideline is to maintain that. She said that has not been maintained, and that is where the issue is here. Baker said that there are roofs around Iowa City that have that flare that have had new shingles or newer roofing materials put on, but that flow has been maintained. She said that the Grant Street property is an example of where it has been altered slightly, but the nature of the roof has been maintained, with a solution that didn't get rid of the flare. Baker said what happened here is the removal of that flare feature that was an architectural feature that was Historic Preservation Commission August 14, 2008 Page 6 significant to that era of house the way it was originally built. She said that is the issue the Commission is dealing with here -the flare is gone, and the Commission needs to decide if that is allowable or not. Baker said that if chair and staff had known at the time the owner came in and said no change was going to be made that the owner didn't intend to maintain that flare, it never would have been approved. She said the Commission is currently dealing with the fact that it was approved based on assumptions that the flare would be maintained. Baker said the way the roof exists now probably will have better drainage, but the truth of the matter is that there are other contractors in town who have made roofs like this work. Baker said there are so many different places in this process where something broke down, including the co-owner coming in and saying there would be no material change. She said there is also the issue of the contractor not being willing to maintain the flare. Baker said there is the example of the house on Kirkwood in which the contractor was not following what was approved in terms of reapplying stone. She said the owner had to hire a different contractor who was able to do it the way it was approved in the certificate of appropriateness. Baker said there have been examples certainly in the Commission's recent history in which owners have been required to change back after doing something that wasn't approved. She said she is very concerned about the precedent this will set to allow people to go out and do what they want and come back to the Commission after the fact and have it approved. Baker said it is a slippery slope. She said that while she appreciates the work being done on the house, there are guidelines and procedures, and other people have been made to change things back. Baker said she does not see in this case a reason in the guidelines that would allow the Commission to say that this is okay. She said she would have to vote against this. Bunting Eubanks said the dilemma is basically that the Commission has to be just in what it does. She said that a very specific reason has to be cited, such as impinging on someone else's property line. Bunting Eubanks said there has to be a specific reason for making an exception to the guidelines, which are there for a reason. Swaim said the interpretation of the guidelines is up to each individual Commission and the guidelines should be seen as recommendations. She said that while the Commission wants to be fair and consistent, there just has to be a case-by-case approach. Swaim said that the level of work done on the house compared to what had been done before is great. She said she understands the argument against setting a precedent, but she does want to take into account in this case -what else has been done to rescue this house from deterioration. Swaim said she continues to believe that because of all the other features on the house that have been maintained or restored, the flare is one of several things that characterized this house, and the flare is gone, but there are other things that maintain the integrity sufficiently. Michaud said she agrees. She said that it's fine to be a high and dry house with one little roofline to consider, but when one is considering a major reconstruction and restoration of a very threatened property, one has to think about the scope of things. Michaud said the fact that they are going to have to excavate and remove the driveway indicates the level of concern with the drainage situation. She said that house always looked really threatened and was sitting right on the ground. Michaud said that she could see where that would be the overriding concern, the water and the drainage. Michaud said the idea is to let the community understand how important historic preservation is without making enemies. She said she understands the concern and feels it is too bad that we lost this here, but this is a person who, like other people, is restoring a rental property. Michaud said she walks past this house three times a day. She said she goes down Washington Street and it's ugly. She said she walks down Iowa and it's intermittent. Michaud said that Burlington is hideous. She said that College Street is one street that one can walk down and most properties look nice. Michaud said that the pitch and the scope of a huge project under way that will run far more than expected is something the Commission should consider. Michaud said that she could see the confusion about the permit, because he was just restoring the roof. She said she can see where the permit was not an issue. Michaud said she can not say it strongly enough that the Commission cannot alienate someone who is working blood, sweat, and tears and a lot of money and then say we're not going to pay attention to his concerns. Historic Preservation Commission August 14, 2008 Page 7 Michaud said there are the guidelines, but the Commission cannot apply its approach to each case without a little discretion. She said this person is here pleading his case and the Commission should listen. Bunting Eubanks asked if there is a possibility of restoring the decorative frieze board. Kuecker said that was there is a list of three options. She stated that the one she had eliminated does not respond to frieze board at all. Kuecker said that if the roof were kept the way it is, the frieze board that went along and then broke at the windows would be necessary for the brackets to be reinstalled. She showed how the brackets were before and then how the brackets being reinstalled right under the siding. Kuecker said that looks inappropriate, and there needs to be a board behind those brackets as there was originally. She added that she believes that losing both the brackets and the flare would be extremely detrimental to the historic quality of this house. Bunting Eubanks said that because the windows were so high, the frieze board would have to be broken in between. Kuecker said that is correct, if the roof is kept the way it is. Downing said the bottom of the soffit now is flat, but it had been sloped. Kuecker confirmed this. Downing said then the brackets have been changed. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 803 East College Street, allowing the roof to stay as it currently is with the stipulation that the frieze board of the same dimension to the original frieze board be installed with the decorative brackets. Swaim said that she is recommending an exception in terms of the roof flare because of extenuating circumstances, because of the scope of the project and the many historical elements of the house that have been restored, and because of the confusion in the process of communication, which is unfortunate and not the owner's fault. Michaud seconded the motion. Baldridge said he spoke before, when this was first considered, about the need for educating the people who do the work. He said that both Baker and Swaim have persuasive arguments. Baldridge said that he is tempted to come down on the practical side that the work has been done, and he abhors having to tear something up to redo it unless there is a really substantial reason. He said that flare is a significant architectural feature which could come under the category of substantial. Baldridge said that he falls on the side of hoping that this is an educational experience for the Commission and for others in the business of restoration. Downing said that as a counterargument, this also might be an educational process for those in the business of restoration who just do something and then come back and say, "Well, it's already done." Wombacher said that obviously he is not a professional, but when one has to have things approved, it is so hard to do a project of this magnitude. He said that almost every little thing to a certain extent on there needs approval, but you didn't know it until you got into it. Wombacher said that once one lets the house sit there for five weeks with no gutters, which you cannot put in, because the carpenter can't finish, and the painter can't finish until the carpenter finishes, and the gutter guy can't finish. Wombacher said that in the meantime, the water goes right in on the other side of that trap door and went down to the whole basement. He said that the pile of mud sitting out in the driveway is from the guys he has hired to go down and keep shoveling out. Wombacher said it is his own fault, because it is his piece of property. He said that, however, it is so hard to do something and all of a sudden realize this is deeper. Wombacher said that when one gets into something, then he realizes he needs another permit to do this. He said he knows there is a permit process and appreciates what the Commission does. Wombacher said though that it is so hard to do a project if you have to stop and get approval at every single step. Wombacher said that his contractor is a craftsman and has done great work for him in the past. He said the contractor did what he thought was right. Wombacher said he himself would take the blame for that, but they Historic Preservation Commission August 14, 2008 Page 8 weren't trying to get away with anything. He said he spent a lot more money than he intended to, and it is not like he did it to cut corners or to benefit himself by doing this. Wombacher said there was no benefit whatsoever. Wombacher said it is very hard to do this not knowing what you're going to need to get permission to do, because then it takes another month to get another okay to do step by step. He said he guessed that was what professionals can do. Downing said there is a counter to that in that it is possible to hire design professionals. Wombacher said they don't know if it's rotten until you start getting into it. He agreed that is what professionals do. Wombacher said that it's so hard to determine if it's rotted and it's something they need to change or get another approval. Wombacher said that right now the foundations and the stone work are not exposed, because it's all covered. Wombacher said that the foundation and stonework is in horrible condition, and he'll need to do that. He said he did not know if there was something he would need to get approval for, even though it's not exposed. Wombacher stated that there are so many issues that he just can't go into. He said he has time to work on it this weekend but didn't know if they could do it. Swaim said that if Wombacher considers hiring a professional designer, it would be wonderful if that person were familiar with preservation to add to their skills, however, Swaim said the Commission will always be working with people who are taking on a project and with contractors who have a variety of skills with restoring old houses and preservation. She said that this is another way of educating the public. Swaim said that she doesn't think that is fair in this situation. She said that applicants have come before the Commission several times on different projects that they say they didn't know they weren't supposed to be doing. The motion was denied on a vote of 4-4 with Baker Downing Ponto and Trimble voting against and Baldridge Bunting Eubanks Michaud and Swaim voting in favor. Michaud said that she understood the people who voted no to defeat this. She stated that she believes that if someone is going to try using this decision as a precedent, they should get the message by looking at the history. Baldridge commented that the Commission has made people go back and redo things. Bunting Eubanks said her concern is that she doesn't want to lose the house, although she feels the contractor could have picked up the ball and known more about what he was doing. Baldridge asked what kind of steps the Commission might recommend be taken. Trimble said she feels that if there is anyone to blame, it's the contractors. She said it is part of the contractor's job to know what to get permits for and know when a permit becomes necessary. Downing said that in Iowa City, as soon as one replaces any sheathing, then a building permit is required. He said that does not just apply to historic districts. The Commission discussed methods for getting the word out about when a permit is required. Swaim said there is a need to be positive and proactive about this but also a need to let people know that if they do something the wrong way, there are penalties. She said she was uncertain whether the letter says that sort of thing. Burford said the City just came out of a situation after the tornado where Iowa Avenue had a renaissance because of the fact that there were regulations. She said that the process was ongoing, and needs to include the entire community. Michaud said there were compromises on Iowa Avenue rooflines. She said that one thing the Commission could do is that if there is a roof that they have to bring a photograph in to building inspection -that should be a red flag -that building inspection immediately says the flair has to be retained. Historic Preservation Commission August 14, 2008 Page 9 Baker said if one is only reshingling, the flair is not impacted. Kuecker said that if someone comes in for a building permit, they are sent to her if the property is in a historic district. She added that in this case, no permit was requested until someone reported that the work was going on. Kuecker said that when she went to the site, nothing was happening on the eaves and she assumed they were being retained. She said she was told at that time that the decorative brackets were being reinstalled, and she assumed it would look the same after the reroofing as before, as indicated on the application. Burford said that if there had been the opportunity to observe the original gutter and get a structural engineering report or architect's report or technical advisory report from the State that this was unworthy of reconstruction, then it wouldn't cause this situation of potentially setting a precedent. Michaud said one option might be to require a permit to reshingle for a property in a historic district in order to get total review. Kuecker said that in other parts of the City, a permit is not required to redo windows, although it is required in the historic districts. She said that might be looked into with regard to reshingling. Baldridge asked if the fact that it is in a historic district for that raises a caution flag. Kuecker said that if an owner comes in for a building permit, it does. Swaim suggested contacting roofing contractors and the people who are actually doing the work. Michaud said that a letter could be sent to all of the roofers. Baker stated that there are people who don't realize they're living in a historic or conservation district, and that's a problem. She said there are people who don't know when they do and do not need a permit. Baker said there are contractors who don't get that working in a historic district is not the same as working in anon-historic district. Baker said the Commission needs to start looking at getting information in newsletters and talking to the realtors. She said the Commission can't count on having the letter to those in affected areas being sufficient to educate homeowners. Baker said there is no easy answer to the education component. She said that it needs to be ongoing and constant and at every layer of the process. Burford said that Terry Larsen, a realtor at Blank and McCune, is in the Press-Citizen writers group. She said that maybe Larsen could be approached to write a column about historic preservation issues. Baldridge said he would like to see the Commission project an image of trying to be helpful to citizens, owner, renters, contractors, and workers all up and down the line. He said that people should be encouraged to ask for help, and any article in the Press-Citizen should point out that historic preservation is helpful to citizens and is not intended to be a barrier or to make someone's life more difficult but is to serve the nature of the community and make it easier for people to do that. Bunting Eubanks stated that communication is a big issue, and it was brought out in the Historic Preservation Plan as a goal. She said that she would be willing to work with Kuecker to draft a letter to professionals regarding historic preservation and what it means. Bunting Eubanks asked if anyone would be willing to head up the effort to contact the Press-Citizen and speak on behalf of the Commission. Swaim said she would be happy to review whatever is put together. Bunting Eubanks said that one point for an article in the paper could describe how Cedar Rapids is losing its historic properties, because it doesn't value preservation. Downing agreed to help with getting something into the Press- Citizen. The Commission discussed some facets of the application for 508 Rundell Street. Baldridge said that there should be some horizontal support on the porch. Kuecker said she sends a letter with every certificate and will include the fact that the Commission had some concerns about this. Historic Preservation Commission August 14, 2008 Page 10 Baldridge said there is a gap between the floor and the horizontal panel so that when one is hosing off the porch, water will be allowed to escape. He said that otherwise there is a lot of screen length in each of the panels. Ponto agreed that with screening of that length, there would need to be a few horizontal members to add to the panels. Kuecker said she would include in the letter to the homeowner that she would be available to answer questions that may arise. Bunting Eubanks said the decision regarding the reconsideration for 803 East College Street was a difficult one. Ponto said that it demonstrates that there is a diversity of opinion on the Commission. He said it shows that there is a good mix, which stimulates discussion and is good for everyone. ....~ -- CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JULY 24, 2008: Bunting said that there is a reference in the minutes to how she would approve something if it wasn't going to alter the historic status of the property. She said it was more along the lines of her being much more willing to reconsider it, rather than just flat-out approve it. MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the July 24`t` Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Downing seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Trimble said that she has been working with property owners in Cedar Rapids who had flood damage. She said that they are looking at rebuilding, and some people are kind of concerned that the commercial district on the Czech Village side has never been surveyed. Trimble said they are in a cultural district as designated by the City. She said that New Bohemia is in the district and Czech Village is in the district, and they want the two to stay kind of in their historic manner as they are being restored. Trimble said the residents wanted her to ask if anyone had any ideas of what the City could do. She said it would be almost impossible right now to get 51 % to turn it into a historic district. Burford said that at the last meeting of Friends of Historic Preservation, the Cedar Rapids Historic Preservation Commission (CRHPC) asked to have an open kind of meeting. She said the National Trust had informed the CRHPC that it had to form anon-profit in Cedar Rapids to decide certain issues. Burford said there was a lot of good to come out of the meeting. She said there were a lot of very instructive points that focused on historic preservation. Trimble said that a lot of the property owners supported that, and actually, a lot of property owners have been bought out by their neighbors who want to restore the property historically. She said that with so many people displaced, it is difficult to track down everyone to get a 51% majority. Burford said that Rod Scott is with the Iowa Preservation Alliance. She said that the people at Brucemore actually work very closely with the people at the National Trust. Burford said that one has to get out on the street and talk to people, and it is a huge effort. Baldridge said there was a decision to create an NGO similar to Friends so that they would have an arm that could do what Friends does in Iowa City, as opposed to limitations placed on a City commission. Burford said that the crux of the problem 30 days ago was that the City of Cedar Rapids didn't want its historic preservation commission to be proactive. She said the City of Cedar Rapids wanted its commission to be consultative to make recommendations. Burford said the City itself did not know what it wanted to do. She said the City is throwing roadblocks in the way of making decisions. Trimble said that the City originally told them not to survey the Czech Village and gave instructions to survey around it. Rouge Rentals 904 Fairway Ln SE Iowa City, Iowa Christina, We are notifying you that we wish to appeal to the city council the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission on the property at 803 E. College St, in Iowa City, on July 10~, 2008. Thank you c~~~~s~ ~~ ~ ~: ;- ~ti ;=' _~ ~~, ;. .. .., -:~, ~:~ v ~~ 0 y; v o p..,. C.l~-i- r ~.'-.,_,®~~ CITY OF IOWR CITY ~,.~ r, ~~ RAC DIEM ~~~a Date: August 26, 2008 To: City Council From: Sara Greenwood Hektoe (,~( G`~ Re: Historic Preservation Appeal- 803 E. College Street On August 14, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission voted on a request to reconsider its denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 803 E. College Street. Eight (8) members of the Commission were present at the August 14 Commission meeting, which constituted a quorum. The Commission voted 4-4. ~, Section 5 of the Commissions By-laws states, A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum at any meeting and a majority of votes cast at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be decisive of any motion or election." In order to pass the motion, a minimum of five (5) votes were required. Since a majority did not vote in favor of the motion, the motion failed. S NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF A LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $18,500,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING CAPITAL LOAN NOTES, SERIES 2008B, (FOR AN ESSENTIAL CORPORATE PURPOSE) AND THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 26th day of August, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the authorization of a Loan Agreement and the issuance of not to exceed $18,500,000 General Obligation Refunding Capital Loan Notes, Series 2008B, for an essential corporate purpose of the City, in order to pay costs of the refunding of the outstanding Series 1998, 1999 and 2000 General Obligation Bonds, dated April 1, 1998, March 15, 1999 and July 1, 2000, respectively. Principal and interest on the proposed Loan Agreement will be payable from the Debt Service Fund. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City, to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at this meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the authorization of a Loan Agreement and the issuance of Notes to evidence the obligation of the City thereunder or will abandon the proposal. This Notice is given by order of the Council of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by Sections 384.24, 384.24A and 384.25 of the City Code of Iowa, as amended. Dated this 15th day of August, 2008. s/Marian K. Karr City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa (End of Notice) NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF A LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $27,000,000 SEWER REVENUE REFUNDING CAPITAL LOAN NOTES, SERIES 2008C, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 26th day of August, 2008, at 7:30 o'clock P.M.., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the authorization of a Loan Agreement and the issuance of not to exceed $27,000,000 Sewer Revenue Refunding Capital Loan Notes, Series 2008C, in order to provide funds to pay the costs of the refunding of the outstanding Series 1996, 1997 and 1999 Sewer Revenue Bonds, dated March 15, 1996, June 1, 1997 and February 1, 1999, respectively. The Notes will not constitute general obligations or be payable in any manner by taxation, but will be payable from and secured by the net revenues of the Municipal Sewer Utility. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City, to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at this meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the authorization of a Loan Agreement and the issuance of Notes or will abandon the proposal to issue the Notes. This Notice is given by order of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by Sections 384.24A and 384.83 of the City Code of Iowa, as amended. Dated this 15th day of August, 2008. s/Marian K. Karr, City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa (End of Notice) NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF A LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $10,300,000 SEWER REVENUE REFUNDING CAPITAL LOAN NOTES, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 26th day of August, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the authorization of a Loan Agreement and the issuance of not to exceed $10,300,000 Sewer Revenue Refunding Capital Loan Notes, in order to provide funds to pay the costs of the refunding of outstanding Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2000, dated October 1, 2000. The Notes will not constitute general obligations or be payable in any manner by taxation, but will be payable from and secured by the net revenues of the Municipal Sewer Utility. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City, to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at this meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the authorization of a Loan Agreement and the issuance of Notes or will abandon the proposal to issue the Notes. This Notice is given by order of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by Sections 384.24A and 384.83 of the City Code of Iowa, as amended. Dated this 15th day of August, 2008. s/Marian K. Karr City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa (End of Notice) IQ NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF A LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $8,000,000 WATER REVENUE REFUNDING CAPITAL LOAN NOTES, SERIES 2008D, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 26th day of August, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the authorization of a Loan Agreement and the issuance of not to exceed $8,000,000 Water Revenue Refunding Capital Loan Notes, Series 2008D, in order to provide funds to pay the costs of the refunding of the outstanding Series 1999 Water Revenue Bonds, dated May 1, 1999. The Notes will not constitute general obligations or be payable in any manner by taxation, but will be payable from and secured by the net revenues of the Municipal Water Utility. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City, to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at this meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the authorization of a Loan Agreement and the issuance of Notes or will abandon the proposal to issue the Notes. This Notice is given by order of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by Sections 384.24A and 384.83 of the City Code of Iowa, as amended. Dated this 15th day of August, 2008. s/Marian K. Karr City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa (End of Notice) NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF A LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $11,000,000 WATER REVENUE REFUNDING CAPITAL LOAN NOTES, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 26th day of August, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the authorization of a Loan Agreement and the issuance of not to exceed $11,000,000 Water Revenue Refunding Capital Loan Notes, in order to provide funds to pay the costs of the refunding of outstanding Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2000, dated December 1, 2000. The Notes will not constitute general obligations or be payable in any manner by taxation, but will be payable from and secured by the net revenues of the Municipal Water Utility. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City, to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at this meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the authorization of a Loan Agreement and the issuance of Notes or will abandon the proposal to issue the Notes. This Notice is given by order of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by Sections 384.24A and 384.83 of the City Code of Iowa, as amended. Dated this 15th day of August, 2008. s/Marian K. Karr City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa (End of Notice) i .,- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the 26tH day of August, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall of the Iowa City City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider a resolution authoring conveyance of a utility easement to MidAmerican Energy located west of 1620 Highway 1 West, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. Copies of the proposed resolution and easement are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Commission consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK j. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AUTOMATIC SOURCE TRANSFER PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the Water Treatment Plant Automatic Source Transfer Project in said city at 7:00 p.m. on the 26'h day of August, 2008, said meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall in the City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street in said city, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK ~~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE WATERWORKS PRAIRIE PARK FISHING PIER PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the WATERWORKS PRAIRIE PARK FISHING PIER Project in said city at 7:00 p.m. on the 26th day of August, 2008, said meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall in the City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street in said city, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK ~` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the 26tH day of August, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall of the Iowa City City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider a resolution authoring conveyance of the property known as 1926 Broadway Street and 1946 Broadway Street to Hawkeye Area Community Action Program (HACAP). Said property is located in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa and is described as follows: Lot 2 of part of Block 2, Braverman Center, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 7, page 20, Plat Records of Johnson County Iowa, Copies of the proposed resolution are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Commission consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK