Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC 02.08.2018 Packet MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL JANUARY 11, 2018 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Kevin Boyd, Zach Builta, Sharon DeGraw, G. T. Karr, Cecile Kuenzli, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim MEMBERS ABSENT: Gosia Clore, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Karen Fischer RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Bristow said that the State sent posters for the upcoming summit in Des Moines this summer and asked that people get the word out by posting them in an appropriate place. She asked for suggestions for placement. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1201 Seymour Avenue. Bristow said this property is across from Longfellow School in the Longfellow Historic District. She said the applicant proposes to put an addition on the back of the house. Bristow stated that the house itself is a small cottage with a lot of Tudor references, including the projecting gable in the front and how the door also has its own projecting gable. She said the house is covered in shingled siding. Bristow said that on the back there is a full width dormer across the rear. Bristow showed the site plan. She said there is a very small addition proposed, and it will be enclosed, as well as a new screened porch, and a small landing and stair. Bristow showed the current, existing rear elevation. She said the deck will be removed, as will the pergola. Bristow showed where the new addition basically covers the door and window area and showed the window that will remain. Bristow said that one of the things that was worked through is how exactly to connect a new addition. She said there is the side of a gable roof coming down, a dormer, and putting in another gable that projects out at the viewer, which impacts the dormer and everything else would not work. Bristow said that therefore the new addition, which is only about five feet deep, will be a shed roof addition. She stated that it is not going to be the same angle as the gable, because it would get too low, but it will be able to tie in. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 2 of 15 Bristow showed the point under the windows where it will tie in. She said that generally, when one sees a dormer, it should be three feet set in from the side. Bristow said this is another instance in which the house is pretty small. She said that the current dormer is grandfathered in, so it is already just one foot from the side. Bristow said that when one wants to put an addition on here, one wants to set it in from the side of the house so that the side of all of the house does not just become one long elevation. She said that one does not really want to set it in farther than the dormer, so a compromise is reached so that it is set in six inches. Bristow said that there will basically be a definition between the new addition and the back wall of the house. She said that the addition will be able to overlap the side of dormer, which will help both fit in. Bristow showed the new addition, with a shed roof sloping up. She said the owners propose to put a skylight in the back to allow some light in. Bristow said staff finds that a skylight, especially when it's on the back of the property and won't be visible from any street elevation, is completely acceptable. Bristow showed the main gable coming down, the new roof hitting in at this point, and the dormer. She showed how those align. Bristow said the windows will match the divided light configuration of the original windows that are all on the first floor of the house. She stated that the second floor windows have all been replaced, so they don't have the same divided light pattern. Bristow said that the screened porch, because it is removed from the main house, is able to have a gable that ties into the main structure. She said staff really felt that was a good way to terminate that portion of the addition and give it a better presence. Bristow showed a side view of the house and the area where it will be tying in. She showed the main gable, the different slope to the new addition roof, and the dormer up above. Bristow showed where the skylight would be and where the gable for the screened porch would tie in at an appropriate place in that new area. Bristow said the new addition, that which is not a screened porch, will be shingled to match the main house. She said the railing will match the guidelines. Bristow said one can see all along the gable on the main house where there is a piece of crown molding. She said the owners propose to use a synthetic product, which she passed around to the Commission. Bristow said staff finds this to be acceptable for this kind of use. She said it can be painted, and the owners can probably get a good match on the crown that they have there. Bristow stated that the other instance where the owners would like to use a more synthetic material is at the sill for the new windows. She said there is also a sample of that material, a Versatex product. Bristow said staff finds that to be acceptable, but it is not a preapproved product, so the Commission would need to decide whether it would be appropriate here. Bristow said that otherwise, everything will be cedar. She said there will be cedar flooring, and the new windows will be Jeld-Wenn metal-clad, double hung windows. Bristow said there will be a French door between the mudroom and the screened porch, but it won't be visible except for through the screened porch. Bristow showed the other view, saying there will be a small window in the side of the mudroom. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 3 of 15 Bristow stated that the owners are not proposing to use the typical lattice skirting, either the diamond or the vertical, around the screened porch. She said the owners would like to use cedar one-bys that will horizontally ring underneath the porch. This was something done on another house in the Longfellow District reviewed by the Commission. Bristow said she thinks this is another instance where that would be an appropriate installation on the back of the property. Kuenzli asked if the degree of pitch on the new addition replicates the existing pitch on the existing shed dormer. Bristow said the drawing shows that the dormer has a two and twelve pitch, and the new addition would have a three and twelve pitch. MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness the project at 1201 Seymour Avenue as presented in the application with the acknowledgement and approval of the Versatex material. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Builta, Clore, and Wagner absent). 516 Fairchild Street. Bristow said this property is in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District, and the Commission has looked at this property before. She said this is a University Partnership house. Bristow said the previous project approved the removal of the corrugated, metal awnings and removal of the chimneys. She added that that work has already been done. Bristow said that the current project is multi-faceted. She said that much of the work proposed as part of this project could be approved through staff review or staff and chair review. Bristow said that there are a couple of things that bring this before the Commission for review, so the whole project will be reviewed. Bristow said the first thing is a combination of different types of roof materials on this house. She said there is standing seam metal, which has rusted, been recoated, and is now rusting and the coating is coming off again. Bristow said that in a breezeway, flat area, it has a deteriorated rubber membrane roofing. She said that the garage and maybe a couple of other locations have a really flat shingle roof material. Bristow said that the owners propose to remove all of them. She said that flat area would be redone in a black rubber, and the garage and the house would be done with an asphalt shingle. Bristow said the owners are not proposing to put in a new standing seam, and they do not believe the roof could be rehabbed by recoating it. Bristow showed images of the roof. She said that a lot of what is seen is the coating that was once put on coming off and the rust coming through. Bristow said she would guess that if one removed all of the coating and worked to clean up the rust to recoat this, one would find quite a few holes coming through. She said the roof is not in good condition. Bristow said she did not take photographs of the garage roof, because it is not the kind of roof the Commission would approve anyway. Bristow said this house originally had a crawl space, and the owners dug it out and made a basement. She said they then added a cellar door that, at the time they bought the house, was operable by pulleys and was hooked to the metal awning system. Bristow said the owners propose to remove this cellar door. She said it is not historic. Bristow showed an interior photograph of the stairs and stated that these are modern concrete stairs that are not HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 4 of 15 deteriorated to the point where one would think they are historic, and the walls beside them are not historic. She said staff really feels that removing these stairs and the cellar door cover would be acceptable. Bristow said the garage door is not an overhead door, so it is not operable. She said that on the inside, it is walled over, so one does not know what the condition of the back of this door is. Bristow said the owners propose to remove it and put in just a plain, flat panel door, with no dents or panels to it but just a smooth and flat surface. Given the fact that the condition is kind of undetermined and that to make this door operable as an overhead door it would have to be cut up, Bristow said staff finds this to be an acceptable replacement. Bristow said the front door on the house will be replaced; the fan light is not historic. She said it will be a half light with two vertical panels below, which is something the applicants have been using on their properties. Bristow said staff did get the applicants to move from steel doors to fiberglass doors. Bristow said the windows in the house will be replaced. She said they do have original sashes, but she did not know how they were ever operable, as there are no pockets to put weights, no little holes to put the tape version and no pins. Bristow said the windows do not look like they have been altered. She said that because of that and because of the fact that staff is really not sure they could be made operable, staff feels it would be acceptable to replace them. Bristow said the house has lost so much of its original integrity for other reasons that just getting good operable windows that all match and have the same divided light pattern would probably be a really good thing. She said staff has talked to the applicant about using black sashes instead of white sashes. Bristow stated that one can see that the sashes that are still there were black. Bristow showed the kitchen window. She said the applicants would like to raise the sill on this window about ten inches so that they can have a kitchen counter pass under this window. Bristow said this window is in an old addition to the house. She said the addition could be historic, but staff feels that would be appropriate alteration. Bristow said that likewise, in the breezeway, there is a pair of wide double hung windows on the west wall, and the applicant will replace those to have good proportions. Bristow said staff does not yet have window product information, which is typical for a University Partnership property, because they bid things out. She said staff also does not have front door product information. Bristow said staff would recommend that the motion include approval of the product by staff and chair or just by staff. Kuenzli asked about the front door. She said that places where she has seen that kind of little roof like that is on the side entrance, and this is the primary entrance and the main feature of the house. Kuenzli asked if there was any chance to get the applicants to make it look a little more appealing. Bristow said at this point that would probably not be likely. She said she assumes that the entrance canopy is not original. Bristow said this is an interesting house that is kind of like a hall and parlor but also an I house, so it might not have had anything over the front door. She said didn’t know if it ever had a porch. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 5 of 15 Bristow stated that originally the applicants were going to remove the asbestos siding on this house. She said they no longer have the budget for that so will paint the siding instead. Bristow said she assumes that the new owner will eventually remove the asbestos siding. She said that at this point, the applicants probably could not be convinced to do a project that they don't need to do. Agran said there is a house about a block away from this that has a similar front awning that is historic to the house. He said it is not totally unusual in this part of town. Agran said he is fine with replacing all the windows. Swaim asked if the front railing will be removed. Bristow said it will remain unless it needs to be replaced for some reason. Michaud asked about the back overhang over the two doors or three doors and if it would remain. Bristow showed a photograph with the awnings and an awning that went along here that was removed. She said the one that can be seen is more like a porch roof and said she would imagine that it will remain, if it is not gone now. Michaud asked if the door being proposed for the garage replacement would just be a pedestrian door. Bristow said no, that the door would be a typical overhead door for a car. DeGraw said she understands that the roof is in a bad state, but it's too bad that has to go because it is one of the main characteristics that gives one a tip that this is an historic house. She stated that once that is taken away, so much of what this house was is replaced by new materials, and the historic character is basically lost for her. DeGraw asked if any comparison has been done as to the cost difference between repairing it versus putting on asphalt siding. Bristow said she did not know if the applicants have looked into that. She said they look at the prep that would be needed as too substantial to consider. Agran said he is sure that when they strip off the metal roof there will be wood shingles underneath. Swaim said she agrees with DeGraw that there are so many houses with metal roofs on the North Side especially that it has become a defining characteristic. MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 516 Fairchild as presented in the application and staff report with the following conditions: window product information to be approved by staff and front door product information to be approved by staff. Boyd seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Clore and Wagner absent). REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON REPLACEMENT LIGHT POLES TO ACCOMMODATE CELLULAR EQUIPMENT. Bristow said that there is a general cellular tower installation throughout a lot of the North Side of Iowa City. She stated that it is a Section 106 Review, because this will have State or federal funding; therefore the Commission has been asked to comment. Bristow said that she will send via e-mail any comments the Commission wants to get back to the companies involved. She stated that this is a Verizon project, and it is Terracon that is leading the efforts. Bristow said the Commission is not voting to approve things but is HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 6 of 15 commenting. She said that if, after this, the Commission wants to add more comments, she could probably make that work. Bristow said that Terracon googled an installed tower. She said there are drawings in the packet of what things may look like. Bristow showed the photograph that is somewhat representative of what Terracon is installing. Bristow said the poles tend to be either a wood or metal pole that is currently located in town and will be replaced with usually the same material, usually the same height. She added that there are a couple of them that are about ten feet taller. Bristow said there are a lot of electric light poles and other poles around town. She asked if this installation would make enough difference that the Commission wants to comment. Bristow showed one of the poles to be replaced. She said that it will remain the same height and is proposed to be a wooden pole. Bristow said that probably one of the most visible of all is on the Pentacrest right near the main entrance. She showed where the pole will be located. Bristow said this is the exact pole, so it is a light pole. Bristow said this one will not change height; it will be the same height as the existing one. She read "Existing LED light fixture to be relocated to proposed pole," and added therefore they do plan to put the little arm with the fixture on the top of this pole. Bristow said there is more information in the packet, and the Commission could discuss those individual pages if desired. Boyd asked if other utility-type companies, when they make changes in historic neighborhoods, are required to ask the Commission to comment. Bristow responded that if an entity receives State and federal funds for a project in an historic neighborhood, they have to ask the governing CLG for comment. She said that if it is a house or something like that, then the Commission might help a little with the design, and sometimes that happens even if the property is simply near an historic district, depending on the project and the type of funding Bristow said that some but not all of these projects were sent as a request in a letter to Swaim to please provide comment. She said that in the past there was a project to change the cupola on the top of City High, and that was actually changing the historic material, so the Commission really had comments about it. Bristow said that these are really modern things replacing modern things. She said this is not taking out an historic light fixture or anything like that, none of them will be mounted on buildings, and they are all in the right-of-way. Bristow said that this is basically the company checking a box and whether the Commission feels this is the kind of thing it needs to review and comment on or not. Karr said that he was involved in this in a former career. He said that if one puts these on the regular poles that are already there like they are matching in the Pentacrest, he feels that no one would notice. Karr said that when a huge cell tower like the one on Rochester Avenue is installed, one would notice that. He said that one would walk by this and not notice, if they are matched. Kuenzli stated that some of these are going to be ten feet taller and 25% taller than they are currently. She said that really does make them noticeable. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 7 of 15 Kuenzli said that a lot of cities around the country have opposed these, because when they are installed in residential areas, it really does create a sort of industrial note in a residential neighborhood. She said that one cannot argue against these things, according to the terms of the 1996 agreement that allowed these things to be built, on health grounds. Kuenzli said they can be argued against on aesthetic grounds. She said it seems like some of these would be so much taller than anything around them that it mars the neighborhood and disturbs the area. Kuenzli said that there are ways of achieving greater coverage by putting mounting units on existing poles. She said it is called a DAS system, and T-Mobile has used them and admitted that in residential areas they are preferable. Boyd said the Commission does not have any governing authority here, just commenting authority. He said he is happy to encourage the company to find, where possible, smaller poles. Boyd said it does not hurt to encourage the use of smaller, more frequent poles instead of taller, more robust poles. Bristow said a motion is not needed, but comments are passed along. She said she is hearing that if the company can use a pole that is closer to what the original pole is or is shorter, that would be preferable. Bristow said if there is general agreement by a few Commission members, it is worth passing along. Kuenzli said she doesn't know enough about the type of thing that is proposed for installation. She asked if the company has looked at a Distributed Antenna System (DAS), which can be installed on existing poles and emits less power. Bristow said she can ask them about the DAS. Swaim said this is a good selection of viewpoints. Karr said there needs to be a distinction that this is not about the huge, huge cell towers. He said this is probably a hybrid, but he has no problem if they can match the height - that makes a lot of sense. Karr said that generally, especially when replacing wood poles, it is going taller for a variety of reasons. Swaim said the Commission members can all probably agree that they don't want anything modern intruding into the neighborhoods - that modern technology has to be accommodated but that it be done in the least intrusive way. Kuenzli said the company did not present a real rationale for why this has to be done, specifically why it has to be higher. Swaim asked Bristow to pass along the comments. REPORTS ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Minor Review - Staff Review. 608 Rundell Street. Bristow said this Moffitt house is covered in hardboard or masonite siding. She said it is totally deteriorated. Bristow said the garage has a beautiful little wood shingle pattern on it. She said staff decided that the house probably had the same wood siding to match the garage, just like the neighboring house and other Moffitts have. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 8 of 15 Bristow said this house will be resided in a cement board to match the wood shingle siding. She said this project is the second project to be partially funded by the Preservation Fund. Bristow said this is a $17,000 project, and the Preservation Fund is putting up its limit, which is $5,000. Otherwise it would have been a 50-50 match. Intermediate Review - Chair and Staff Review. 800 Brown Street. Bristow stated that because of bidding, the owners made a few changes to this project. She said that some of it involves the fact that the structure was going to be made out of a specific type of wood material. Bristow said it might have been a glue/lamb built up, and whether or not the owners use that or solid pieces, staff thought it would be fine, because the one that was probably more modern had been approved, and the alternative would be less modern. Bristow said the owners also had hidden connections back up in the structure where the roof structure hits columns. She said staff gave them the option to use exposed fasteners. Bristow said there is a chance that the stone pier surrounds will not be installed and there will be basically posts that go to the ground. She said the owners think they can come back later and put those surrounds on with staff labor. Regarding the roof material, Bristow said that the alternate now is a standing seam metal. She said they went through a lot of back and forth on this and have finally figured out that the way to specify the proper standing seam metal is that it has to be a flat plan. Bristow said that takes out all of the little dimples and even the tiny dimples, so flat panel standing seam is the appropriate term, and that is an alternative for this project. AMENDMENTS TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES. Bristow said that in the review process, there are different levels of review so that some of this is streamlined and not everything needs to come to the Commission. She said there are certain types of projects for which staff doesn't know where they fit. Bristow said that sometimes a project has been classified for intermediate review when it didn't need to be or as a minor review but it is not preapproved. Bristow said staff would like to streamline the system when possible. As mentioned in the memo, the handbook allows for these amendments. She said it is up to the Commission to decide if the specifications are enough or adequate or whether these should be minor reviews. Bristow said that a lot of them have examples in recent projects that have come up. Driveway curb cut as minor review. Bristow said the overriding issue is that if someone needs to rebuild, slightly widen, or install a curb cut, it gets engineering approval, which means it comes to staff. She said that doesn't fit in minor or intermediate, so it really needs to come to the Commission. Bristow said that if a driveway meets the guidelines, which is an eight to ten-foot driveway, and it goes to a garage or the back of the house, staff finds that is the kind of thing that could easily be a pre-approved item. She said that a typical apron, the curved part that goes out to meet the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 9 of 15 street, is a three-foot diameter on each side. Bristow said that means that a ten-foot driveway would have a 16-foot curb cut, and an eight-foot driveway would have a 14-foot curb cut. Bristow said that for that reason, while this does not come up frequently, it is something that can be pretty basic. She said staff recommends having this become a minor review. Boyd said the language refers to "leads to a garage behind a house." He asked if the Commission cares if there is a driveway that just takes someone to the back, with or without a garage. Bristow said the Commission may want to add a qualification or change or remove these items. She stated that there are certain things in the building and zoning code that won't allow one to have a driveway that goes up to an occupied part of a house. Bristow said the driveway has to go up to a garage or to nothing, something like that. Boyd suggested the language be left as it is. He said if there is not a garage the Commission might want more guidance, but he did not want to hold things up unnecessarily. Male said he thinks that is part of the balance that the Commission is always trying to find. Bristow said that these amendments are not to make it so it's easy to approve all of the curb cuts. She said that only if certain criteria are met would it be a minor review. Baker said there is a house in her neighborhood that has a paved back yard. She said she would like the language to continue to say "leading to a garage" and have it come before the Commission if it is something else. Agran said he agreed with Baker. Agran said it was his understanding that paving in back yards would be a reviewed procedure in the future for rental properties. Bristow stated that is part of the new rental permit procedure. Karr said that did not only apply to rental properties. The consensus of the Commission was that the language is acceptable. Front door replacement of certain types as minor review. Bristow said that if one has a front door that is not historic, some modern door, to be replaced, it is not a certificate of no material effect, especially if the pattern is different or something, it is something else. Bristow said that wood would be the first choice, fiberglass that is painted would be a second choice, and staff does not want to see steel doors. Bristow said that a few of these have come up and they have been treated like minor reviews when they aren’t really. She added that another qualification beyond material would be that there is an appropriate style for the house. Bristow said that since not all of the houses fit into the categories, there is language regarding a door that matches appropriate historic doors on the property, in case there is something to look at. The consensus of the Commission was that the language is acceptable. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 10 of 15 Roof shingle replacement of certain types as minor review. Bristow said there are a lot of roof replacement projects that come up since they were included in the review beginning in 2015. She said that typically, there will be a roof material like 3-tab shingles that are really not appropriate, or the agricultural metal roof, or shingles that are appropriate but the owners want to use the metal roof system that was put on the 932 College Street house, or things like that. Bristow said it would be a little more straightforward if this could be a minor review if it is not a certificate of no material effect. She said she is not talking about replacing standing seam metal with standing seam metal; she is saying maybe it is appropriate to put shingles on a certain roof or something along those lines. Bristow said staff spelled this out in the memo. She said that all of the trim, fascia, everything needs to remain the same material profile as the existing. Bristow said therefore the roof either has flat, asphalt shingles, which are not typically approved, or three-tab shingles. She stated that the new roof will be architectural asphalt shingles mimicking wood shake shingles or a flat, panel standing seam or the roof currently has flat panel standing seam that is deteriorated beyond repair and the new roof will be architectural asphalt shingles mimicking wood shake shingles. Bristow said that again, this is not covering the certificate of no material effect that would be replacing it with another metal roof. Bristow said this would be basically allowing for the replacements that have generally been felt to be appropriate but not a certificate of no material effect. Swaim said that in the third bullet at the end of the first line, there should be an "and" between "repair" and "the". Agran said he thinks the wording is fine. He said the Commission is getting pretty nuanced about the standing seam roof. Agran said it is saying that one can have a metal roof but only an exact kind of metal roof. Agran said it is intriguing to him that there are instances when one cannot put in a vinyl window, because it is not historic and the material is not historic and it is not expected that those will have the same longevity. He said yet asphalt shingles that are like the definition of fake, and are also volatile, are allowed. Agran said he is of the opinion that all of those shingles all look fake on every house. He said it stands in opposition to the historic character of the neighborhood that is talked about all the time. Agran said that actually, these metal roofs that are equally old and much better investments in terms of maintaining the building stock for a much longer period of time - those roofs are a lot less volatile. Agran said he just wonders whether, when all of this is preapproved, it sort of means that one can do whatever one wants to do, i.e. asphalt shingles. He said it might be that there could be more encouragement to put a longer and better investment in, since that is something that in all other respects of what the Commission does, that is really what it's about. Agran said it's about what is the best investment to maintain the integrity of this envelope. Bristow said that the whole use of asphalt shingles that mimic wood shake shingles is a direction that has been taken from some of the preservation guidelines from the National Park HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 11 of 15 Service. She said the National Park Service does recognize that as an appropriate replacement for the wood shake that just cannot be replaced because of various reasons. Bristow said the second bullet point in the handbook on roofs says, "Consider unoriginal materials that may have achieved significance, such as metal roofs." She said that is something that staff would tend to suggest to some degree. Bristow said that at this point it is still a little cost prohibitive for some people to do that. She said there are differences in the types, etc. Kuenzli asked if someone proposing this might qualify for the City's $5,000 grant. Bristow said that is possible. Bristow said that for a long time, staff thought a lot of the metal roofs were original. She said that when the tornado came through, a lot of the metal roofs that were removed had wood shake shingles underneath, showing the metal roof as the second generation roof. Bristow said for that reason, staff has generally thought that if a roof is deteriorated beyond repair and the owner cannot afford to put on another metal roof, the asphalt shingle is acceptable, because it probably had wood shake shingles underneath the metal roof. Bristow said staff does talk to owners about whether a metal roof can be coated with Acrymax and if it can be repaired. She said staff does try to have that discussion first. Agran said he is thinking more about what these kinds of guidelines encourage. He said there are endless conversations the Commission has with people who come in and claim something is cost prohibitive, and the Commission tells them it's not about cost. Agran said he doesn't quite understand why an exception is given to roof material. He said there is an anomaly here with roof materials. Agran said that with every other item, the Commission says it's not about the cost; it's about the long term future of the building. Bristow said those are valid points to think about. She said that roofing is an odd thing. Bristow said it was not regulated until a couple of years ago, so it is new to the Commission and staff. Bristow said the biggest thing is that if an owner has shingles and they are flat, but he can put on something that has more definition, that is the way to go. She said it is totally up to the Commission if it doesn't want to come to an agreement on making this a minor review item at this point. Bristow said staff doesn't consider it a certificate of no material effect to replace bad flat shingles with architectural shingles. She said that is a change that does have a material effect on the house, so staff would like that kind of thing to be a minor review. DeGraw asked if, when a person can be cited for letting his house go, for example the paint has deteriorated, is the paint on a metal roof in the same category. Bristow replied that she did not know that answer specifically. She said the inspectors have been stepping up inspections, and she believes that they do also look at the roof as well as the house itself. Agran said he believes this should proceed as written. He said he does not see any change here. Agran said that he thinks about asphalt shingles and felt it was the moment to discuss it. Baker said that the roofing item could be removed from the list, with these items still coming to the Commission until the Commission comes up with better language. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 12 of 15 Bristow said that if the Commission feels that something needs to be revisited, it can also make something no longer be a minor review item. Swaim suggested the Commission pay attention to these as they come up in the staff report and if problems emerge, revisit any of the items. Synthetic siding removal as minor review. Bristow said that if the siding is steel or hard board or vinyl or asbestos, and it is being removed, it is not really a certificate of no material effect, because it usually has a very large effect on the house. She said that staff basically wants to encourage the removal of these types of materials. Bristow said the general feeling is that most of these houses show some indication of what the original siding is underneath. She said that if for some reason an owner doesn't know, it maybe would be a case to come to the Commission. Bristow said that sometimes an owner doesn't know until he gets to that point, but then perhaps it is an intermediate review, if it is in a certain neighborhood or district. Bristow said they tried to write this by listing some synthetic sidings and felt that it would be assumed that that was not the original siding. She said the only time there might be an issue with that might be with mid-century modern. Bristow said in that case, hard board could be the original siding. Bristow said the language states that any repairs may be made with materials matching the original in type, size, and profile. She said she did not include material, because there may be an instance where cement board could exist with wood or not or maybe an instance where the siding is cedar and the Commission does not want to require cedar if red wood is appropriate or something like that. The consensus of the Commission was that the language is acceptable. Window and door modifications on the back of a primary structure as minor review. Bristow said that if a door opening changes size, location, is added, changes from door to window or window to door, it comes before the Commission whether or not it is on the back of a house. She said there are times when, if a door is directly on the back in particular, it could be reviewed by staff instead. Bristow showed examples of when this might apply to a door on the back of a house. The consensus of the Commission was that the language is acceptable. Carriage house-style (two-story) garage as minor review. Bristow says there are some neighborhoods where a home may have an accessory apartment above the garage. She said there are some garages where, if the owners want to design something simple, like the garages in the guidelines, then they don't actually need to come to the Commission unless they are taking down another garage first. Bristow said that if an owner is just building a garage in an appropriate location and it fits a certain design standard, then it is basically a minor review. She said there have been a lot of carriage houses and they tend to end up looking similar. Bristow said that if the owner wanted to fit one of those designs, then it could essentially be preapproved also. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 13 of 15 Bristow said that if the owner wanted to do something extravagant or widely different, the project could come before the Commission. She showed some designs and styles that would be acceptable. Bristow said the general idea is to have something that would match the house or be appropriate with the house. Agran asked what tone is set by these things that the Commission says don't need to be addressed. He said that it is possible that all the form-based code will go through, at least on the North Side, and he is thinking about this in terms of other things the City is currently doing in respect to missing middle stuff. Agran said he is excited about the possibility of these accessory buildings being constructed in historic districts. Agran said if a homeowner was considering this, he would look at the diagrams and feel that this looks like a barn and he would not think anyone would want to live there. He said it doesn't mean that someone who is dreaming of more would understand that this is just the bare minimum that one can do; it is not the maximum that one can do. Agran said that when the Commission says that these are ways that this can look, he wonders what that looks like to someone who thinks that preservation is just bossing homeowners around and telling them what they can and can't do. He said at the very least, he wondered if there could be some kind of an example that includes increased window glazing, so that when these structures are discussed and how they fit into the fabric of the neighborhood, for him it doesn't have to do with window glazing and that the windows need to be two feet by two feet squares, because that was what was affordable and what a horse needed 100 years ago. Agran said that to him it is sort of like, this is going to be a little, tiny house in someone's back yard, and there are wonderful ways that contributes to the neighborhood. He said he wonders whether there can be something in there that says that the amount of glazing can be higher. Agran said what is this actually saying - that these structures have to look like they are still used for horses, because that is the message these designs send to him. He suggested providing some examples of what could be possible. Agran said that some people think these things are a burden, and it would be nice if they could be shown more inspirational examples. Bristow said that might be a reason that this does not become a minor review. Agran said he wanted to make clear that he thinks this should be a minor review. He said that if someone wants to build it like a barn and there are other barns in the neighborhood, that should be a minor review. Agran said he just questions what the message is, if one is looking through the guidelines and sees what is pre-approved and if that discourages what would be really lovely investments in the neighborhood. Bristow asked if having some of these examples with lap siding instead of board and batten might help with some of the barn-like look. She said that this could be revisited, and there could be some with larger windows. Bristow said part of the issue is that one would not want the building to look too modern with the window patterning. She said the drawings were some that were drawn up in the past as specific projects. Agran said that staff has discussed being looser with the back of the house, and he suggested that the side of the garage that faces in to the property could be looser. He said these would be really great things to have more of and would stabilize the neighborhoods in really positive ways. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2018 Page 14 of 15 Swaim said perhaps this should not be in this group, because it may go a lot of different ways. She said that even the term carriage house says one thing to the public. Swaim said that one wants people to think creatively and historically appropriately. She said that small outbuildings in the North Side are kind of characteristic. Bristow said that for garages, there are some pre-approved designs, but not all of them fit in, so sometimes they come to the Commission. She said though, that if someone is trying to install a very small, utilitarian garage on the property, having a pre-approved design for that works. Bristow said this is something that does have a living space in it, so there are other qualifications. Boyd said that having some simple examples for a simple garage is very different than creating a living space. He said that these are big and have the potential to change the character of a neighborhood. Boyd said that the Commission wants to be responsive to projects that need quick answers, but this isn't something that would generally need a quick answer, and he feels that it is something that should come before the Commission. Karr said that if one has to get a permit for a window that is not in an historic district, it would be one page, no documentation, installed in one day. He said that a two-story unit with apartments is not something that can be streamlined. The consensus of the Commission was to remove the carriage house-style (two-story) garage from the items to be amended. MOTION: Boyd moved to accept the memorandum moving these items to minor review with two changes: addition of the word "and" in the Roof Shingles Replacement and removing of the Carriage House-Style Garage from the memorandum. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Kuenzli, and Wagner absent). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 14, 2017: MOTION: Boyd moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's December 14, 2017 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Kuenzli, and Wagner absent). COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: 2017 HP Awards. Bristow asked anyone interested in writing text or presenting awards to contact her. Karr volunteered to place the yard signs at the properties. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2017-2018 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member NAME TERM EXP. 6/15 7/31 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/9 12/14 1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5/10 6/14 AGRAN, THOMAS 7/1/20 X X X X X X X X BAKER, ESTHER 7/1/18 X X X X X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 7/1/20 X O/E X O/E X X X X BUILTA, ZACH 7/1/19 X O/E X X X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 7/1/20 X X O/E X X X O/E O/E DEGRAW, SHARON 7/1/19 X X X X X X O/E X KARR, G. T. 7/1/20 -- X X X X X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 7/1/19 X O/E O/E X O/E X X X MICHAUD, PAM 7/1/18 X X O/E X X X X X SWAIM, GINALIE 7/1/18 X X X X X O/E X X WAGNER, FRANK 7/1/18 O/E O/E X O/E X X O/E O/E