Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-2018 Historic Preservation CommissionIowa City Historic Preservation Commi0 ssion %3 -, `� c Thursday COP June 14, 2018 5:30 p.m. ` Cl C 4f �7 J Emma Harvat Hall y �I City Hall III 111j'j,"li ,; wo wam wcaiacuar—d. a IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, June 14, 2018 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma Harvat Hall 5:30 p.m. A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 519 North Johnson Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (addition) 2. 815 Brown Street — Brown Street Historic District (chimney removal) 3. 404 Brown Street — Brown Street Historic District (garage addition) 4. 515 Clark Street — Clark Street Conservation District (front entry removal and redesign) 5. 320 N. Lucas Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (historic trim removal and redesign) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect —Chair and Staff review 1. 509 Rundell Street — Longfellow Historic District (window repair, storm door repair, storm window replacement) 2. 402 Church Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (foundation repair) 3. 1223 Seymour Avenue — Longfellow Historic District (cedar shingle roof replacement) 4. 1223 Seymour Avenue — Longfellow Historic District (siding and trim repair and painting) Minor Review —Staff review 1. 1230 Burlington Street — College Hill Conservation District (window replacement) 2. 425 Clark Street — Clark Street Conservation District (siding replacement) 3. 1118 Court Street — Longfellow Historic District (garage door replacement) 4. 429 N Governor Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (rear step reconstruction) Intermediate Review --Chair and Staff review 1. 8 Bella Vista Place — Brown Street Historic District (minor change to a prior COA- entry canopy) 2. 308 and 310 S. Governor Street — Governor Lucas Street Conservation District (driveway and parking pad) 3. 833 Rundell — Dearborn Street Conservation District (minor change to prior COA- dormer) 4. 320 North Lucas Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch floor reconstruction) 5. 724 Ronalds Street — Brown Street Historic District (non -historic outbuilding demolition) F) Consideration of Minutes for May 10, 2018 G) Commission Information and Discussion 1. Transfer of Development Rights 2. Clinton Street and Railroad Depot District update 3. Election of Officers 4. Retiring Commissioners H) Adjournment If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Bob N iklo, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5240 or at bob-miUo@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Staff Report June G 2018 Historic Review for 519 North Johnson Street District Goosetown / Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Matthieu and Jacqueline Biger, are requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 519 North Johnson Street, a Contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation Distdct. The project consists of a two-story addition to rear of house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 9.0 GuidehhesforAddidons 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 6.0 Guidelines for New Construcdon 6.1 New Primary Structures 8.0 Neighborhood District Guidelines 8.4 Northside Neighborhood Staff Comments The house at 519 North Johnson Street, is an American Foursquare built between 1922 and 1926. It has a low hip roof, a full width front porch and simple window patterning. The upper story has two six -over -one double hung windows on each facade. The lower story has some eight -over -one double hung windows on the front and south facades. The house has a stucco -coated foundation, aluminum siding over original lap siding, and a modem metal shingle -style roof. The aluminum siding and soffits were installed about 1975. In 2016 staff and the Commission Chair approved a porch repair project. With the current project, the applicants are proposing a two-story addition to the rear of the house. The 16 ft. by 16 ft. addition consists of a first story family room with a projection to the south and a bathroom. The second story of this addition consists of a bath and bedroom. This addition would extend the building footprint westward from the existing rear of the building by approximately 260 square feet per floor. The Applicants have already secured approval of a Special Exception from the Board of Adjustments allowing the reduction of the rear principal setback necessary for this proposed project pending a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission is granted. The new addition is set back from the south elevation wall 18 inches to differentiate the addition from the original house. The projection on this side aligns with that original south wall. On the north, the addition is set back 7 feet to provide necessary separation from the existing garage. This side is further setback at the connection to the house to allow the existing first and second story windows to remain. The addition will match the house with a stucco -coated foundation, metal shingle roof and a combination of six -over -one and eight -over -one double hung windows. Since the house is covered in aluminum siding and soffits, details such as the soffit and lap condition as well as the use of corner boards or mitered corners will be determined once a portion of the aluminum siding is removed for the project. The drawings include a possible configuration of siding and trim that will be verified prior to installation. The guidelines for additions, specifically Section 5.1: Expansion of Building Footprint, emphasize the importance of preserving the character and features of the historic house while designing an addition that is both compatible with and distinguished from the historic house. One suggested method of distinguishing the addition is by offsetting the walls of the addition from the walls of the original structure. The guidelines recommend placing building additions at the rear of a property, using a palette of materials similar to that used on the historic structure, and matching key horizontal "lines" on the existing building, such as window head height. In terms of mass and roofline, the guidelines recommend constructing additions that are consistent with the massing and roofline of the historic building in terms of roof overhangs, soffits, eaves, and proportionality of roof pitches and spans. The guidelines recommend that siding appear similar in size, shape, texture, and materials to existing siding. Additionally, the guidelines recommend using windows that are of a similar type, proportion, and divided light pattern as those in the original structure. Staff finds that a two-story rear addition is appropriate on this Foursquare and resembles similar two-story additions with sleeping porches that are found throughout Iowa City. The additional windows on the second - floor rear elevation help the addition appear more like a sleeping porch. Tying the new hip roof into the original hip at a lower elevation while maintaining roof pitch and soffit level is also appropriate. The south - facing projection is a decorative element that staff finds acceptable for this house. Staff also finds it appropriate for the north wall of the addition to step in to avoid the existing windows on the house. This step in will also provide more space to maneuver between the house and garage. The additional space acquired by stepping back out on the north wall is necessary for the added bathrooms and will not be visible because it happens on the north side of the house. Matching the trim and siding on the existing house will be more complicated because of the aluminum siding. Staff finds it appropriate to review the existing condition under the aluminum to determine the nature of these details. In the future if the aluminum siding is removed, the new addition will match the existing house. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at Address as presented in the application with the following conditions: • Siding and trim conditions are approved by staff • Window product information is approved by staff APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC REVIEW Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 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 Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org hislgjgpresery ggnresources The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See last page of this application for deadlines and meeting dates. PROPS TY OWN APPLICANT INFORNATION Mftse check primary tmftd pen t) ❑ Property Owner Name: a c eo— Email: Phone Number Address:) Jul c1 .(e s •g City: a C, State: —Zip Code• SZZ J4Contractor/Consultant Name: d LLC ,o Email: Phone Number 14 321 79 0 city: zrapva cva State: Zip Code:® PROPOOLD PROJIWT INFORMATION Address: fn Use of Property- Date Constructed (if known): 9 Z ' I�Il1`i•O1�IC � TT� `, 099"ve lefttedatAwfalowfiq;Bak'..w is v fh; �ti -®-- ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown St. Historic District ❑ Northside l-ristoric District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Summit St Historic District ❑ Dearborn St Conservation District ❑ East College St. Fiistme District ❑ Woodlawn Historic Distrito Goosetown/ Horace Mann ❑ Jefferson St.Historic District ❑ Clark St. Conservation Conservation District ❑ langfellow Historic District District ❑ Governor -Lucas St. Conservation Within the district, this Property is Classified as: District ® ContribnHng ❑ Noncontributing ❑ NonhisWk ., - Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. Addition ClYPunl' • projects entailing an addition to the banding footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) j luilding Elevations Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information Site Plans ❑ Alteration egYpwaffy i projects ken�ngwork such as siding and window replacement skylights, window opening porch replaee<,e<t/canstrucuon, baluster repair, or sh nilar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Product Information ❑ Photographs ❑ Construction of a new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chu nney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Evidence of deterioration ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ R� per air or Restoration of an edsting structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information. Please contact the Preservation Specialist at 356.524.3 for materials which need to be included with applications AppucAt7om ftwimmews Project Description: Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: To Submit Application: Download form, pill it out and email it to Jessica4nistuw@iowa-dty.org or mail to Historic Preservation, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 c _Q Q O O LL ts 0 0 u West (rear) elevation Windows to be saved by north step back Window relocated to rear elevation of new addition Staff Report June 7, 2018 Historic Review for 815 Brown Street District: Broom Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Dean and Kaye Hagedom, are requesting approval for a proposed demolition project at 815 Brown Street, a Contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The project consists of the demolition of the historic brick chimney to below roof line. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines forAlteradons 4.2 Chimneys 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Staff Comments 815 Brown Street, built in 1925, is a 1 '/z -story Open Gable Cottage with a single gabled dormer on the east side. The roof is a standing seam metal finish. Roof purlins and rafters are exposed. The small front porch has a hip roof and is placed off -center; it has a square battered column and a solid balustrade. The house is clad with narrow clapboard siding and the front fayade has a single one -over -one double -hung window in the gable and a pair of similar sashes on the first floor. In 2009 staff and the Commission Chair approved a 12 ft. by 24 ft. addition to the rear of the house consisting of one story with a basement, with the condition that the constructed roof be built separated from the existing roof in order to preserve the edge details of the existing roof and brackets. In 2018 staff and the Commission Chair approved removal of the standing seam metal roof and subsequent replacement with a new flat panel standing seam metal roof with 18" spaces between the ribs. The removal of the modern exposed metal chimney was approved at this time. With the current project, the applicant is proposing removal of the existing historic brick chimney that extends beyond the roof line in conjunction with the roof replacement project. Section 7.1 of the guidelines recommends retaining any historic architectural feature that is significant to the architectural character and style of the building, including chimneys. Further, section 4.2 recommends retaining prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character of the building. Because the existence of a brick chimney is an architectural feature on many historic homes, including cottages such as this, staff initially recommended repair of the chimney and worked with the applicant toward this goal. From the ground it was difficult to see damage to the brick, structure, or mortar joints. The applicant contacted several masons who have experience working with historic chimneys and have worked on local historic properties. Staff spoke with the masons about the chimney. The masons said that the cap was deteriorated but could be repaired but a great issue was the inability to properly flash this chimney which is located at the convergence of multiple roof peaks. Historic flashing could be lead or copper which is extremely pliable and could form around these peaks. With the metal roof and modern flashing, preventing water infiltration that has been damaging interior plaster is unlikely. Because of the inability to repair the chimney, staff recommends approval of its removal. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 815 Brown street as presented in the application. NNW- 1- a'y � lh IT- -� 1• _ _ APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC REvmw Application for alterations to the 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 Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/lustoploreservationresources For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness Major Review ❑ Intermediate Review 1� Minor Review . The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See last page of this application for deadlines and meeting dates. U PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT INFORMATION (Please check primary contact, person) Property Owner Name: City: Contractor/Consultant Email: r rs�u i n Number: State: ® Zip Code: gLr CSM) City: ids _. State: ® Zip Code: i y ....__ ._ PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION r Address: Use of Property: Date C tructed (if known): ? HIS'TORIC OkSIGNATION --- (Maps axe located at the Following link: N -!RRV .Xg' 4 tin eser`- 'mac 1 ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): Brown St. Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Summit St Historic District ❑ Dearborn St. Conservation District ❑ East College St. Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Goosetown/ Horace Mann ❑ Jefferson St. Historic District ❑ Clark St Conservation Conservation District ❑ Longfellow Historic District District ❑ Governor -Lucas St. Conservation District Within the district, this Property is Classified as: ❑ Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Product Information ❑ Photographs ❑ Construction of a new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans 04 Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Evidence of deterioration ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Regair or Restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other Please contact the Preservation Specialist at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with applications APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS �> Project Description: _grllk chlMlyV a� cfe wtn Ae�-da `l-b .lam c2(,bu� '� /ozo trod �cd. vie. Lv x e lwl v oo-C' l/tisT 11 ,; w�x4 C 1W KA y le 1<s way r I" � /00 au9r/ .asp (furoan-f cL` rotv4z 6r4�1 Je�,4tr. ���vlcvv 4111t.r. h k'i V AAPud YD®i c XU.9 waaa u. `i •N6f "3la�nl�ss s Pe �'� cFr/error/ �fts�ryt ark l/.� �rvrnJc n/�/srsrY� ��i/�di L�Ar�i��a°�+ove ehifnfu� /ViS on Kblored i�ck vz o ho (�b {-ok rrz je c � Exterior Appearance Changes: To Submit Application: Download form, Fill it out and email it to jessica-bristow®iowa-city.org or mail to Historic Preservation, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 0 Staff ReM June 7, 2018 Historic Review for 404 Brown Street District Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Gregory Cilek, is requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 404 Brown Street, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The project consists of the construction of a rear breezeway and garage addition with a flat garden roof. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines 4.0 Iowa City AlistoricPresemadon Guidelines forAlteradons 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.3 Doors 4.5 Foundations 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.11 Siding 4.12 Site and Landscaping 4.13 Windows 6.0 Guidelines for New Construction 6.2 New Outbuildings 8.0 Neighhorhood Distdct Guidelines 8.4 Northside Neighborhood Staff Comments This house, built in 1916 is and American Foursquare form with Georgian or Colonial Revival Style detailing. The balanced front facade has a central entry door with sidelights and an open porch with an enclosed porch on the other side of the entry. The front porch is supported by heavy square columns with panel inserts in the balustrade. A spindled balustrade once enclosed the center bay of the porch. The decorative trim is classical in detail. The hip roof has a flared or bell -cast profile. The windows tend to be ganged in threes. Both one - over -one double hung windows and multi -paned casement windows exist on the house. In 1996 the Commission approved a multi -story rear addition, a west side screened porch addition and revisions to the porch roof. In 2004 the west -side screened porch addition was redesigned and approved by the Commission. The applicant is proposing to build a two -car garage at the rear of the property with driveway access through agreement with the property to the east at 414 Brown Street The garage will connect to the rear addition of the house with a breezeway that is similar in detail to the screened porch addition on the west side of the house. The garage will have a flat roof, an eave overhang to match the front porch and a simple square - spindled balustrade to match others on the house. The garage will have trim and siding to match the house, two separate carnage -house style garage doors with arched headers, similar to other large openings on the porches. The foundation wall will be stucco -coated to match existing foundation walls. The new addition will attach to the back of the house where an earlier addition was built. A portion of the existing deck will be encompassed by the breezeway. The garage will be built at the main level of the house and will be raised above grade with a retaining wall on the north and west sides. A portion of the existing driveway will be retained for the neighbors to the north and another portion will be reclaimed and raised to the grade of the rest of the yard to become a portion of the open space required by the zoning code. Section 6.2 of the guidelines, New Outbuildings, recommend placing new outbuildings at the rear of the primary building. Garages should be clearly subordinate in size and ornamentation to the primary structure. Garages should have two single -car overhead doors instead of one two -car door. Carriage -style doors in a style appropriate to the property may also be used. Windows should be relatively small and rectangular. It is not recommended to construct garages attached to the primary building. In Staffs opinion, this property presents a unique condition that justifies an exception to the guidelines to allow an attached garage. Unlike most of the houses along this section of Brown Street, which are built with a 20 or 30 foot setback, this house was built to align with the much older house next door at 414 Brown Street and has a 132 foot setback. This leaves very little room behind the house to build a detached garage. To clarify, the zoning code considers a garage that is connected only with a breezeway instead of enclosed, conditioned space, to be a detached garage. Staff is considering this garage attached because it is physically attached despite zoning code definitions. (Unlike the zoning code our historic Preservation Guidelines do not define the condition, but simply mention attached and detached). With the wide flat overhangs of the front porch and the screened porch addition, this garage design will fit with the architectural character of the house. The siding and trim detail will match the house and the garage will appear, from Gilbert Street on the west side, more like a one-story addition to the house. The breezeway with its necessary, open component will separate the garage addition from the main house. While the current drawings show a very narrow fascia at the roof edge, the final roof overhang will be designed to mimic the front porch roof. The railing, which will match other railings on the rear of the house, will allow this space to be used because the yard that has very little rear space available. Staff recommends approval of the project with an exception to the guidelines for an attached garage. Recommended Modon Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 404 Broom Street as presented in the application through an exception to the guidelines allowing an attached garage because of the unique conditions provided with the site and the existing setback with the following conditions: • Garage eave design is revised to match the front porch and is approved by staff and Chair • Window, door, and overhead door product material is approved by staff • Trim details on the house such as frieze board and watertable are included to match the house. a' C APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC REVIF—w Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.ica2v.org/histgiLcpreservatignresources For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major Review ❑ hrtermediate Review ❑ Minor Review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second. Thursday of each month Applications are due in the office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See last page of this application for deadlines and meeting dates. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT INFORMATION Pease check primary contact person) Property Owner Name:[a Lee. o &-y / t L-re Email: G A -EC nt1.Y a1 3r ..�e t D�� t-C . NY (. Phone Number: 07 - JF( z - 16 Y city (4z=a State: Zip Code: �z ❑ Contractor/Consultant Name: vyViE-4! WtN Email Phone Number: City.. I State •Zip Coder PROPOIBED PROJECT INFORMATION Address: 10 ifw W S Use of Property: G R wd►4, sz Date Constructed (if known): /C 1418TORIC DmIGNATION (Maps are located at the following Imk & This Property is a local historic landmark. OR This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): 4 Brown SL Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Summit St. Historic District ❑ Dearborn SL Conservation District ❑ Bast college SL Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Goosetown/ Horace Mann ❑ Jefferson St. Historic District ❑ Clark SL Conservation Conservation District ❑ Longfellow Historic District District ❑ Governor -Lucas SL Conservation Within thediistrict, this Property is Classified as: District 2 Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric APPLICATION[ REQUIREMENTS Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. I rJ Ad 'lion (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) [Building Elevations ❑ Floor Flans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information [,Srite Flans ❑ Alteration (lypically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are safficient ) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Product Information ❑ Photographs ❑ Construction of a new bolding ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or arty portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Evidence of deterioration ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or Restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other Please contact the Preservation Specialist at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with applications APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Project Description: Materials to be Used: VJ006 Lr A, ,r� 1 o Vl) Exterior Appearance Changes: �?A-t% LV11LW To Submit Application: Download form, Fill it out and email it to jessica-bristow@iowa-dty.org or mail to Historic Preservation, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 L '` N M F - .. yR.•�� r- S � 7pp J 97 I Y I MPT Q S c Z Q a. N I..L 0 z C It Ci LJ V/ 0 Z 3 0 w 0 +' 0 0 o 0 N N � 0) Lf) fC — �a �Z, oco U C FL FO 0 7 ?� =m` Y c� S 3 {{ 1 6 1� a I ti { i v74 � �.�•a 4 _ :.���. f _ _ W � _ s9��` .� r..%' �'i.�1 ��rr ti' �.y+�. " . . .. :. z_. . � 'ram- .., -• s-r y_ ►i �Yrii I J A I/ � y ;�.;:�M wry ,� •�. r r$� r s s r mow � r . s Staff go June 6, 2018 Historic Review for 515 Clark Street District: Clark Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Rachel Klapper, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition and addition project at 515 Clark Street, a Contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District. The project consists of the removal of the brick and concrete front entry stoop and replacement with a new enlarged entry stoop constructed of modem faux -limestone landscape blocks. The concrete site stairs would also be replaced with this material. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.5 Foundations 4.8 Masonry 4.10 Porches 4.12 Site and Landscaping 9.0 Guidelines forAddlrions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 5.2 Decks and Ramps 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features 8.0 NYeighhorhood District Guidelines 8.1 Longfellow Neighborhood Staff Comments Based on evidence in the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, this cube cottage was built between 1926 and 1933. It is a supple single -story, hip roof Craftsman Cottage. The crisp brick walls, dear, sharp geometric form, boxed, overhanging eave and brick -walled entry stoop also point to Prairie influences. The applicant is proposing to remove the original matching brick entry wall and concrete stoop and replace it with a larger entry patio and wall constructed of modern faux -limestone concrete retaining wall block. The applicant also proposes to remove the existing site stairs (from sidewalk to crest of yard) and replace them with new stairs made of a similar modern faux -limestone concrete block in a more natural, less angular design. Several sections of the guidelines pertain to this project. As a front entry stoop, the portion of the house involved in the application could be evaluated as a porch. The demolition of this historic feature is proposed and the new entry design would be evaluated as a new addition. Section 4.10 Porches recommends repairing historic porches and conserving as much of the historic material as possible. Badly deteriorated components should be replaced with new ones that match the historic components in design and material. Concrete steps are used for masonry porches. Section 4.8 Masonry recommends removing all vines from historic masonry because they cause the masonry to retain moisture and they can cause damage to mortar joints. Deteriorated masonry should be replaced with units that appear similar to the existing masonry units in color, texture, and size and have the appropriate hardness. New mortar should be similar in hardness to the original mortar. Section 7.1 Demolition of Significant Features disallows removing any historic architectural feature, such as a porch that is significant to the architectural character and style of the building. Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint recommends preserving significant historic materials and features of the original structure such as decorative windows, brackets, porches and trim. An addition should be designed so that it does not diminish the character of the historic structure. A palette of materials should be used that is similar to that used on the historic structure. Constructing an addition between the historic house and the street is disallowed. A masonry addition should use new masonry that appears similar in color, texture, unit size, and joint profile to the historic masonry. New Porches should be consistent with the historic building. Section 3.3 of the guidelines include a Summary of the goals of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Goal 1 is to identify and preserve those materials and features that are important in defining the building's historic character. Goal 3 is to repair damaged or deteriorated historic materials and features. Goal 4 is to replace severely damaged or deteriorated historic materials and features in kind. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards which are the basis of the Iowa City Guidelines are also used to determine the appropriateness of exterior changes to historic properties in historic and conservation districts. The Standards include the following specific statements that also relate to this project: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. In Staffs opinion, the front entry stair and brick sidewall exhibits some deterioration and needs repair. The caps on the wall are splitting and need to be recast. The concrete stairs are cracking. The repair could be as minimal as pouring new stairs and caps while the brick wall remains in place. The brick wall could also be rebuilt if necessary. The applicant has expressed that the front entry is not used because of the size of the small landing and would like to enlarge it. Staff discussed the possibility of enlarging the entry stoop and the type of design that could possibly be approved by the Commission including a wider and deeper area to sit on with a brick wall of either the existing brick or with matching brick. Initially the applicant agreed with this compromise but decided to present the design with new materials. This house is a rare example of a Craftsman Cottage with Prairie School influences at a modest scale. The historic character of this house is exhibited in the sharp clean lines of the brick architecture and the projection of the front bay and the entry stoop toward the visitor. This stoop is an integral element of the architectural design. Because the stoop is on the front, alterations of it must be undertaken sensitively to avoid a degradation of the historic character. The guidelines recommend materials that match the historic materials and have the same characteristics as the historic materials in all discussions of replacement and addition. When modem materials are allowed, they must also match the characteristics of historic materials. It is staffs opinion that the modern faux -limestone concrete units do not mimic limestone used in historic architecture and would not be approved for use on the house even if it consisted of limestone instead of brick. Similarly, it should not be considered appropriate to add this rough, modern material to a historic house that consists of only sharp brick lines and a minimalist aesthetic. Introducing a new material would alter the historic character of the home especially a material that exhibits natural contours when the house expresses geometry and clean lines. The site stairs on the majority of houses in Historic and Conservation Districts are concrete with the occasional representative constructed of brick. In this Conservation District they are almost exclusively concrete. This consistency adds to the rhythm of the neighborhood and is part of the historic nature of the district. As one walks down the sidewalk the rhythm of the regular stairs marks passage. At the same time, the regularity and sameness of the stairs allows focus to fall on the houses and their historic architectural character instead of the pulling the focus away from the architecture. Staff finds that replacing the site stairs with concrete is appropriate but recommends against approving a modern material that would alter the rhythm of the streetscape and work against the clean simple geometry of the house. With so many of the guidelines recommending against an alteration or addition that changes the materials or alters the historic character of the house, an exception would be required to approve this application. The sections discussed do not include exceptions to allow these changes. Section 3.2 of the guidelines discusses the types of exceptions that may be used on a project. Documented exceptions, where the Commission has encountered acceptable alternatives and they have achieved consensus. These ate the exceptions included in each section of the guidelines. Many pertain to non -historic structures and for that reason, non -historic structures allow for new exceptions. This house is historic, not non -historic. Uncommon situations that warrant special consideration such as non -compliant structures, irregular lots and designs that satisfy the intent of the guidelines may also receive special exceptions when the Commission identifies the guideline for which the exception is being made and the rationale for the exception. Staff does not find that this project warrants an exception for Uncommon situations. Finally, exceptions can be granted when the guidelines are silent or unclear. Staff finds that the guidelines are clear that it is not recommended to remove a prominent architectural feature and redesign it in a modem material that does not match the characteristics of the original material. While Staff does find that it may be possible to enlarge the entry stoop to make it a usable space, that design would need to be carefully reviewed so that it does not negatively impact the character of the house and uses a matching brick material to follow the guidelines. This project would require a separate review by the Commission and therefore Staff recommends against approval of this design and this application. Recommended Motion (Motions must be made in the affirmative and then voted down if the application is being denied.) Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the front stoop and site stair replacement project at 515 Clark Street as presented in the application. La Lo ri MON" - - 4 - ti _, , APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC RmEW Application for alterations to the 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 Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/historicpreservationresources For Staff Use: Date submitted: CAN El Certificate of No n1tenal Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major Review ❑ Intermediate Review ❑ Minor Review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See last page of this application for deadlines and meeting dates. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT INFORMATION (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: JRachel Klapper Email: Rachelkla er ahoo.com Phone Number: 319-331-1845 Address: 1515 Clark St City: Ilowa City State: Zip Code: 52240 Q Contractor/Consultant Name: JAIex Schmidt Landsca a Design llc Email: Alex AlexSchmidtLandsca eDesi .com Phone Number: 319-541-6746 Address: 12762 Black Diamond Rd SW City: Ilowa City State:® Zip Code: 52240 PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION Address: 1515 Clark St Use of Property: lResidential Date Constructed (if known): 1926 HISTORIC DESIGNATION (Maps are located at the following link: tionrc-sources) ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown St. Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Summit St. Historic District ❑ Dearborn St. Conservation District ❑ East College St Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Goosetown/ Horace Mann ❑ Jefferson St. Historic District ® Clark St Conservation Conservation District ❑ Longfellow Historic District District ❑ Governor -Lucas St. Conservation District Within the district, this Property is Classified as: m Contributing 0 Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Photographs [%f Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient) W1 Building Elevations m Product Information m Photographs ❑ Construction of a new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans © Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) m Photographs m Evidence of deterioration m Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or Restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other Please contact the Preservation Specialist at 3565243 for materials which need to be included with applications APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Project Description: s home on Clark St has front entry steps/brick wall and site steps that are falling apart, do not meet code, entry pad of the stoop is small and incontinent for entry. The new expanded stoop would be constructed n a modem concrete retaining wall block that looks like stone(see photo and samples) that would iplement the home and bring the steps up to code. Materials to be Used: Rosetta stone Belvedere wall block with Unilock Eco-Priora pavers for the stoop/steps and Rosetta dimensional "stone" steps and Belvedere wall for the site steps. Exterior Appearance Changes: stoop/front steps will be widened to the south side of the front window and be constructed from Rosetta ,edere wall block. Replacing concrete site steps with Rosetta stone SUBMiT i IiAe I 1� I I Pt U- Mk I Von r, I. W5 ' of .IL 4t e. 1, -41 At Staff Report June 7, 2018 Historic Review for 320 N. Lucas Street District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Karen Leigh, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 320 North Lucas Street, a Contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists of removing the original spindled architrave and brackets and replacing them with turned spindles and a new open bracket design. Auulicable Regulations and Guidelines: 40 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.11 Siding 4.14 Wood Staff Conunents This Goosetown Cottage was built about 1892 as a Gable -Front -and -Wing house with a flat -roof porch filling the ell. The house has a stone foundation. A layer of asbestos siding covers a layer of asphalt brick -patterned siding which, in turn, covers the original lap siding. The windows are one -over -one double hung sashes. The front porch has turned posts, small brackets, and a simple spindled architrave (frieze board under the eave edge) The corner porch column appears to have been replaced, likely from deterioration following water damage. The central porch column is original (except the repaired base) and matches the engaged half columns boxed in and covered at the wall. Recently staff and Chair approved the reconstruction of the porch floor with new footings, floor framing and the use of Azek flooring and an Azek skirt board because the porch sits directly on the ground with no air circulation to keep it dried out The applicant is proposing to remove the original spindled architrave from the porch eave and replace the simple square spindles with elaborate turned spindles. The original brackets would also be removed and replaced with brackets that have a more open design. Section 4.14 Wood of the guidelines disallows the removal of historic wood elements such as trim, porches, cornices, and decorative elements. Many of the guidelines are recommendations but the removal of this type of material is disallowed by the guidelines because of the important role they play in the historic character of the house. This section recommends repairing historic wood elements rather than replacing them and duplicating them or replacing them with salvaged elements that match when they cannot be repaired. Section 10.0 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation says 2). The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3). Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements ftom other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 9). Exterior alterations shall not destroy the historic materials that characterize a property. In Staffs opinion, this house is an example of a humble Goosetown Cottage. Its original owner was a widow (Mary Rennert) who lived here with her daughters. Her daughter Clara, a dressmaker, lived here after her mother died. Clara sold it to another widow, Elena Dvorsky who lived here until 1926. She sold it to an owner who rented it to various tenants. None of the owners were builders or craftsmen who may have installed fancier architectural details while they owned the home as is found in some of the other simple Goosetown Cottages. While other houses may exhibit turned spindles, this house does not. This level of architectural detail has never existed on this house. Changing the square spindles to turned spindles would be giving the house a false historic character. When architectural detail is deteriorated so that it cannot be repaired, it may be replaced with new or salvaged material that matches the original. In this case, the architrave and brackets are covered in layers of paint but are not deteriorated so that they need to be removed and replaced. Avoiding removing paint, preparing the surface, and repainting, which are all examples of common periodic maintenance, are not reasons to remove and replace historic details. Replacing them only to appease a current owner's aesthetic sensibilities is also not an appropriate action. Section 3.2 discusses Exceptions to the guidelines and the types that the Commission can make. The first type of exception is documented exceptions. Documented exceptions are things that have been approved in the past and have gained Commission consensus. This situation would not fall under that nor the non - historic structures discussion that follows, but even that section says that an exception cannot be approved if it creates a false historic character. Uncommon situations are another area where exceptions can be made. This section says that elements of the application would need to warrant special consideration. There would need to be clear and definable rationalization for making the exception. This project doesn't rise to the level of need required for this type of exception. These situations relate to non -compliant structures, irregular lots and similar situations where the guidelines simply don't work which is not the case for this application. The final area for exceptions is when the guidelines are silent or unclear on a topic. In this case the guidelines spell it out very clearly that this type of work is disallowed so this doesn't apply either. Iowa City's Historic Districts, Conservation Districts, and Local Landmarks are a mixture of the awe- inspiring, decorative high -end house, the modest bungalow, and the simple worker cottage. The preservation of all segments of our Cultural History is an important aspect of the creation of a District and the role of the Historic Preservation Commission. Preserving the character of each individual property is the goal of the guidelines. For this reason, it is important to preserve this modest, simple cottage and its history instead of changing it into something it never was. If the materials were found to be deteriorated, they could be replaced to match existing. These materials are not deteriorated. They should not be replaced. Staff recommends denying the application. Recommended Motion (Motions must be made in the affirmative and then voted down if the application is being denied.) Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the spindle and bracket replacement project at 320 N. Lucas as presented in the application. r r� a At PL=ATION rolt N1 Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or For Staff Use �+ properties located in a historic district or conservation district Date submitted , pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and Cerii . ...9f l Ellett Q Cerl fi 6, Appropriatexiess regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Major Review Preservation Handbook, which is available in the ❑ Ravie�++ , Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/historicpreservationresources ©Alinor Review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See last page of this application for dea�dli�nes and meeting dates.. y l 5 i��4±Ii?i°Y C1VYN>lR.i rI►I"t liE�ihcA'I[O%i — -' 'intact . (p,Y pnulay .. ❑ Property Owner Name: [ VV City:! ❑ Contractor/Consultant Name: Entail: 4ill'P l' � C'c� _ 1_-a City I �2u1 Address: Use of Propertv:FQ— This Property is a local historic landmark. Number: State: Zip Code: Phone Number: State: Zip Coder Date Constructed (if known): s 1faA►`hOi�i OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown St. Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Summit St. Historic District ❑ Dearborn St. Conservation District ❑ East College St. Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Od Goosetown/ Horace Mann ❑ Jefferson St Historic District ❑ Clark St. Conservation Conservation District ❑ Longfellow Historic District District ❑ Governor -Lucas St. Conservation District Within the district, this Property is Classified as: Contributing L Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric I ' _a _.w... __' _ .l'?1�P1w�l1+A�'IUIf "F V}R3ie,F�l�•iP!` ' ^ Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Product Information ❑ Photographs ❑ Construction of a new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Evidence of deterioration ❑ Proposal of Future Plans dRepair or Restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other Please contact the Preservation Specialist at 35&5243 for materials which need to be included with applications j APPUCATION fk%,QUtRW9ki"s Project Description: Rc �A--/��R1oCe�°ra.� 4 0"�.� 13'L1�� �S' IOff porc#. / a Materials to be Used: Vk;, U--r c�(xc:Y�l+.�rrv►:�� ► t's.14...`T ^�.•� .r .>r�d_.�•;�cfi:I,,( �YL-.�ws iku* tbv'- " a-Prf`- -s, AI4.4,vLIWr-t � ��^ ��„ory.J,1l �L Wdo� PoryL�<lacc'�� 1,.,'r elaaVL�gt`ns•°-. Exterior Appearance Changes: `-�4,s `} a S P.nAzxlys Mk At, r X%e-" �*-�dar �5 p'.�`�►.t�c Jls t s ° N �w1 "'s�.cc- opc^ `�P�"'+t.c..; Ci�►aF wr`.�� ard., iS', �..�r..c+. `�r, WDo �o To Submit Application: pp Download form, Fill it out and email it to Jessica-bristow�iowa-crty.org or mail to H�isto�� Preservation, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52210 . . . . . . . . . . . . ft"W-A AMR 6 a. AM rj�'.i. -ore rm I Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City I Tall, 410 Ii Washington Street, Iowa City. 1A. 52240 MEMORANDUM Date: June 5, 2018 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Ginalie Swaim, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission and Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Transfer of Development Rights Introduction: During the recent process of local landmark designation for seven individual brick houses in Iowa City, the topic of transfer of development rights was discussed at City Council meetings. Only five of the local landmarks were approved; one has been deferred and another failed. It is possible that if Iowa City had a previously adopted program for the Transfer of Development Rights for Historic Preservation, the recent process could have been more successful. Adopting them now as an amendment to the Iowa City Zoning Code could lead to more success in future preservation efforts. History/Background: Developed as a mechanism for land conservation, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) has been utilized successfully for historic preservation in the late 20' and early 21 It centuries. Several large communities, including San Francisco, have adopted TDRs as zoning code amendments or as a part of their comprehensive plan. TDRs are market - based allowing development potential and value to incentivize preservation. In a TDR scenario the Historic property would be the sending property. This property has inherent development rights based on the zoning code regardless of its historic status. Because of its local landmark eligibility, the sending property can sell its development rights to a receiving property which can use it to achieve more intensive development than zoning code typically allows. A qualification for the ability to use TDRs is the preservation of the sending property. By selling the development rights, the sending property can see a financial, market -based return on its preservation. The owner of the sending property does not feel limited by the preservation and the owner of the receiving property can hope to see financial return on its investment in increased development rights. Discussion of Solutions: During the process of development of TDRs City Staff in Planning and Zoning, Engineering, Building Officials, and Historic Preservation will work through many issues resolved and created by TDRs. Several considerations include defining the eligibility of the sending properties, the neighborhoods or districts which could contain receiving properties, and the nature of the rights included in the TDRs. The National Trust published an article in 2007, "A Preservationist's Guide to Urban Transferable Development Rights," which outlines the benefits and concerns about the development of TDRs. It is attached for your information. The article includes a discussion about potential concerns with TDRs. in particular, assuring that the community has sufficiently restrictive zoning codes so that TDRs do not result in excessive, unwanted development in the receiving properties. Financial Impact: The adoption of TDRs could be used as a tool to lessen development pressure on Iowa City Historic properties. Recommendation: As a zoning code amendment, the development and adoption of a program for the Transfer of Development Rights will take numerous months. Any concerns or questions may be directed to Staff. Staff will also keep the Commission updated with progress so that the Commission may speak to its importance as a preservation tool when it reaches the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. a ►rational trust puhlication A Preservationist's Guide to Urban Transferable Development Rights by Jerirdjer Calfuen. Alvkotts A Preservationist's Guide to Urban Transferable Development Rights by Jennifer Cohoon McStotts wp=lt it be nice if ers could easily redirect growth and development away from historic resources and toward areas where growth can be readily absorbed? In 21st-century American land - use planning, there is an increas- ing trend toward market -based tools —those legal mechanisms driven by supply and demand that (hopefully) accomplish the same goals as traditional land -use regu- lation more efficiently and with less impairment of private prop- erty rights. One such mechanism that has worked particularly well for land conservation is the trans - far of development rights (TDRs). MRS can be equally effective for preservation of the built environ- ment in urban areas, and numer- ous cities have used TDRs to encourage property owners to pre- serve their historic landmarks. The purpose of this booklet is to explain how TDRs can be used to protect historic and cultural resources. Transferring develop- ment rights is a flexible tool that can be adapted by local govern. merits to fit a variety of situations. The strength of TDRs comes from being a market -based mechanism; TDRs harness the economic forces of development and growth that threaten important resources and allow preservationists to use those same forces in favor of preserva- tion. This booklet will help preser- vation advocates understand how TDRs can be used to ease the con- flict between growth pressure and historic preservation. The Concept and History of MRS In a nutshell, a preservation TDR means one party —the sender or seller —sells his right to develop a historic property in whole or in part to another party —the receiver or buyer —who can use it to achieve a more intensive use of the property. As part of the bar- gain, the public gains the protec- tion of the historic resource in the long term, if not permanently. New York City became the first to adopt MRS through its 1968 Landmark Preservation Law —the ordinance famously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Penn Cenoul case, one of the first and most important legal victories of the preservation movement Afew other cities and counties followed suit in the 1960s and 1970s, but the first major wave of TDR programs crested in the 1980s when approxi- mately 60 programs (mostly aimed at environmental protection) were created Only seven of those focused on historic preservation. Today, less than 15 percent of the well-known programs deal exclusively with his- toric preservation, meaning approxi- mately 20 cities and towns have preservation TDR programs. Understanding Development Rights While the details of individual pro- grams vary considerably, every TDR program is based on the same basic concepts of property owner- ship and market forces. In the United States, owning property actually means you own a volume of spaceincluding the land you stand on, the earth beneath it, and the air above it —as well as certain rights that come with the property. American lawyers and judges call these rights a `bundle of sticks" because each right —such as the right to mine, to harvest, to build on your land, or to exclude tres- passersnan be limited, given away, bought, or sold, just like the property itself. When you rent your property to a tenant, you give that person a stick that represents the right to live there for a certain amount of time in exchange for rent. Even though it is temporary, you are giving the tenant some of your rights as the properly owner. Donating a conser- vation easement on your property is also equivalent to giving some of your sticks (rights) to the instim- tion that holds the easement. Local land -use laws, even zoning laws, limit our property rights by tying up some of those sticks. Laws don't technically take away sticks entirely, however, since a law can always be changed When a preservation ordinance places development restrictions on newly designated properties, it binds up some of those sticks (rights) in limitations. What makes a TDR system so powerful is its ability to harness latent rights —the tied -up sticks —on historic or undeveloped proper- ties, and connect them with a demand for development else- where without diluting the public benefits of preservation and other land -use laws. Unused rights are transferred to someone who can use them, possibly even someone who needs them to appropriately develop her property. Cover San Franusoas TDR program was adopted as part of a lsryer comprehensive plan in 1985 This IncenWe program has helped the wty maintain its distinoffm character — Phdo by JenMn Cahoon MoSlotle. ...................... .... ................. ................. ...............................................0 PRESERVATION BOOKS TDRs — Key Terms Conservation easement: A legal document limiting the right to develop a piece of land where the right of enforcement is given to the holder of the easement —a nonprofit organization or government agency Density bonus. Additional density allowed in a development built using TDRs above and beyond the combination of the underlying land -use laws and the value of the purchased rights For example, a buyer of development rights might be allowed to build not lust the square footage allowed on his lot plus the square footage he purchased from the sender but also an addi- tional 5 percent as an increased incentive to use TDRs Development rights: The quantity and quality of develop- ment a property owner is entitled to build on her land under existing laws, including local land -use laws Downzoning: A reduction in the intensity or size of develop- ment allowed under local law, such as the lowering of a height limit or a decrease in the number of units per acre Euclidean zoning: Zoning in general Is a type of land -use control that regulates the design and use of a community geographically by zone Euclidean zoning specifically refers to the separation of uses characteristic of early zoning efforts and is named after the seminal Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty case Tberigbt to develop —both what's given up and what's received ­can be defined in a number of different ways. The owner of the sending par- cel is typically giving up some or all of his rights to build on the property, though he could be giving up any property right —big or small — including the right to pave the site for parking spaces or make certain alter- ations. The receiving parcel's owner typically gains the right to develop above and beyond what the local law would otherwise allow. For example, imagine a landowner who resents the per- ceived loss brought on by new his- toric district restrictions that limit his right to build a tall building. In a common preservation TDR exam - Preservation easement: A particular kind of conservation ease- ment used to protect the facade. exterior, and/or interior of a his- toric building, as well as sometimes the landscape around it Receiving parcel: The piece of land (also called a lot or property) on which the transferred development rights are applied Also referred to as the development lot or growth lot, or in mass, as the receiving, growth, or development area Sending parcel: The place of land--cflen with a sensitive resource -from which the transferred development rights are sev- ered and on which protection is placed Some programs call the sending lot the transfer lot or the preservation lot As a category of in a geographical group, sending parcels are sometimes referred to as the sending, transfer, protection, or preservation area TOR or TO Re: Refers to the transfer of development rights or the transferable development rights themselves Transfer of development rights: The process of legally removing unused development potential from one property and assigning it to another Variance. An administrative exception granted by a local gov- emment agency such as a planning commission that allows the applicant to build a structure or complete a development that would otherwise violate the land -use laws ple, the owner could sell the right to build what he would have if he did not own a landmark minus the sin of the landmark itself. Perhaps he could build a ten -story building if it were not for the three-story land- mark already located there; the seven -story difference could be transferred to a buyer, who would then be able to build additional sto- ries above the height restriction. Why Create; i TDR Program? There are at least three common motivations for instituting a preser- vation TDR program, and they are found singly or in combination. TDRs as a Preservation Incentive The first is the desire to create a financial incentive for owners of a historic property either to physi- cally preserve or (where it is vol- untary) to agree to designate their historic property locally. Such a program would provide owners with additional financial resources to preserve or rehabilitate their buildings upon the sale of unused development rights or simply encourage designation by making the sale of such rights a possibil- ity. The standards that the preser- vation work will be held to depend upon the community. is ...... ........ ......... .... .... ................. .... .... .... ... .......— . .................. • •PRa S.E.R.V. BOOKS Let's look at how a TDRprogram works as an incentive in the imagi- nary town of Encouragement. The downtown height limit is five sto- rim. Mr. Sender's historic ware- house is only three stories tall. The local government would like to give Mr. Sender an economic incentive to volunteer to have his property designated locally and/or to rehabil- itate the historic building. Mr. Receiver owns a nearby property in an ideal location for a hotel, but he would like to build a larger building than allowed by the local law. The local government sees the two different pressures here: the need for a pro -preservation eco- nomic incentive for Mr. Sender and the potential for additional economic development on Mr. Receiver's property. TDRs could be used to relocate Mr. Sender's two stories of unused developable space to Mr. Receiver's lot. As a result, Mr. Sender would have the financial incentive to designate his property as historic (or rehabil- itate if so required under the pro- grant), and Mr. Receiver would be paying to protect a historic build- ing in exchange for his variance from the local law. TDRs to Mitigate Economic Impact Second, where historic designation is involuntary, the local govern- ment may wish to institute a TDR program to mitigate any economic impact of the designation. Often, historic designation raises or stabi- lizes property values along with numerous other economic bene- fits, but it also may dowmzone the property. Although historic desig- nation has been upheld against tak- ings claims over and over again, local governments may be con- cemed about the impact of historic designation on properly values, particularly in commercial areas, where the historic designation can have the effect of downzoning. The rights lost by downzoning can be converted to transferable rights under a TDR program. In addition, communities with preservation regulations may be interested in offsetting economic impacts for political reasons, to make involuntary designation more palatable to property owners. For example, in the fictitious city of Little Relief; the historic down- town will soon be designated as a local historic district with a height limit of five stories. The local gov- ernment is worried that property owners will object to the downzon- ing from the current ten -story height limit, even though them are no buildings downtown over five stories. One such property owner, who has the resources to sue, is Ms. Sender, the owner of a successfully rehabilitated warehouse-tumed- retail establishment Mr. Receiver owns a vacant lot nearby, and he would like to build a larger building than allowed by the local law. He isn't the only developer who will be seeking a variance if the downzon- ing is approved. The local government under- stands the concerns of both types of properly owners, who are fore- seeing lost profits. To mitigate the impact of downzoning, TDRs could reallocate Ms. Sender's unused developable space to Mr. Receiver's lot. For full mitigation, Ms. Sender would be allowed to transfer any rights she had before the downzoning, although Mr. Receiver may be limited in how much he can exceed the new, lower restrictions even with his variance from the local law. On one extreme, Mr. Receiver could be allowed to build out to the pro- vious restrictions (or even bigger) if he buys enough TDRs. Yet, if the community truly wants the average height downtown to be closer to five stories than to ten stories, a ceiling on the applica- tion of TDRs may be imposed to ensure greater compatibility. TDRs as Growth Management Finally, although TDRs have made their name in environmental protec. tion, their ability to direct growth away than a historic urban core or from significant landmarks is a third and important reason to implement TDRs. Bear in mind, TDRs can be effective, voluntary growth man- agement tools, but they typically do not work as growth controls. The purpose of a transfer is to redirect development, not to stop it The imaginary streetcar suburb of Progressville has been experi- encing increased growth pressure, and out -of -scale, inappropriately sited projects have begun to affect the town's historic character. Mr. Sender's historic home is on a larger -than -normal lot, and he has been considering demolishing the building in order to build some- thing larger or subdivide the par- cel. The local government would like to give Mr. Sender an incen- tive not to demolish or subdivide, though he has that right under cur- rent law. Nearby, Ms. Receiver owns vacant property zoned for low -density residential in an ideal location for apartments. The local government aces two pressures —the need for a pro - preservation economic incentive far Mr. Sender and the potential for additional economic development and/or affordable housing on Ms. Receiver's property. TDRs could satisfy both sides by reallocating Mr. Sender's unused developable space in the form ofhousingunits to Ms. Receiver's lot As a result, Mr. Sender would bave the financial incentive to preserve his residential property, while Ms. Receiver would be able to satisfy the market demand for housing ........ .................. ... ................... ............. ............. ................® PRESERVATION BOOKS How TDRs Work The local government's objectives determine what fomi a TOR pro- gram will take Preservation TDRs typically take one of three forms t.Adjacent-lot TDR, meaning transfers to contiguous sites, often including lots across the street or cattycorner and sometimes including any contiguous lot connected in a chain of lots under the same ownership, 2.District-wide TDR, which means transfer to any property (except those designated as sending) within the district, or 3. Inter -district TDR, which requires transfers from a sending district to a receiving district This type of program is best used to redirect growth, since development occurs outside of the protected area Figure t: This illustration shows a two-story building on a corner lot Under the current land -use laws, a building on this lot could extend farther back and higher up The unused space (outlined in dashed black lines) represents the property owners transferable development rights In an adjacent -lot TDR system, the owner can transfer those rights to the lots in blue —those lots contiguous to. across from, and cattycorner to the lot Modified forms of this sys- tem would also allow the owner to transfer the development rights to adjacent lots at an angle Figure 2: This illustration shows a hypothetical district -wide TDR program The buildings in black represent the historic landmarks of the community (though there would likely be more in a district this size) The blocks in blue indicate the 20-block area of this zoning district —let's call it the Downtown District This particular TDR program would allow the landmark property owners to trans- fer their TDRs—again, shown in dotted black as the volume of space above the buildings up to any height limit —to any other lot in the district except other designated sending properties Figure 3: This illustration shows an interdisthct TDR program Imagine a small town with an intact historic Main Street The com- munity wants to protect the Main Street character, the views from the major approaches into town, and the early residential district behind the buildings on the north side of Main Street, but all of these prop- erty owners have the right to build bigger structures under current zoning laws TDRs would allow those rights to be transferred to areas away from the main roads on the west and the scenic bridge on the east in order to accommodate the growth in areas out of sight of most tourists Establishing these different districts —the Main Street and historic residential sending areas versus the younger receiving areas —creates the third type of TDR program, the interdistnct TDR Do the rights have to be transferred to a lot nearby? Not at all One common misconception is that TDRs are only legally defensible for transfers in close geographic proximity (e g , within 500 or 1.000 feet) The TDR program in Denver, for example, allows rights to be transferred anywhere downtown within a 40-block area The Q............................................ Fig. 2 Fig. 3 4'1 i r- -��4•k r \ t most common receiving area for preservation TDRs is the remainder of the zoning district within which the historic structure is located One notable exception is Washington D C's TDR program, which transfers rights from the strictly height -limited downtown outward to the perime- ter where height limits are higher and/or more flexible Some programs require the unused development rights to be trans- ferred to adjacent, across the street., or cattycomer parcels The City of Philadelphia, among others, has rejected such a system precisely for the architectural problem it causes of dramatically incompatible scale In short, there is no predetermined geographical limit on trans- fers unless specified under state or local enabling acts That said, TDRs should be part of a larger planning effort, like any planning tool, and there must be a rational justification for the program, such as a connection between the potential impacts and the selection of sending and receiving areas .......I .................. PRESERNATION BOOKS TDRs and Existing Land -use Restrictions Perhaps the most commonly asked question about TDRs, espe- cially preservation TDRs, is, do the variances given to receiving property owners defeat the pur- pose of the underlying land -use restrictions? In most cases, the restrictions in the receiving area have to be tighter than the local community actually wants to see (lower heights, smaller volumes, etc.) for two reasons. If the community really does not want buildings over a certain height or volume, more than a cer- tain number of housing units per acre, or parking garages over a certain size, for example, then it must set the threshold that receiv- ing parcels exceed even lower. Otherwise, the community runs the risk that the TDRs will be used to create something bigger than what is desired Second, stricter regulations may help create demand for TDRs, which will spread the incentive to preserve more historic buildings. If market pressures are light and developers are satisfied with the land -use restrictions as they are, TDRs will not provide an incen- tive for owners of historic proper- ties because they will have no value in the marketplace. It is worth mentioning that in some communities, nonprofit organizations acquire develop- ment rights either to buy a place at the table to determine the shape of the new development or for the purpose of "retiring" the rights — meaning to hold them perma- nently —rather than to allow them to be applied. This can affect cal- culations and predictions done to balance of supply and demand, which is discussed further below. The Supreme Court ruled that Penn Central Transportation Company had not been denied the use of its as rights entirely It could develop them —subject to the Landmark Preservation Commission s approval --or transfer them to nerghbornng properties via New York Cdys early 7DR program -Ph0bY1Wh brenr UhM What happened to Grand Central Station's developmen After the designation of Grand Central Station as a historic landmark by the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission, the property's owners --Penn Central Transportation Company —applied for certificates of appropriateness from the commission for an addition of more than 50 stones After they were denied, the owners brought suit claiming numerous con- stitutional violations The Supreme Court Justices in Penn Central made a point of noting that Penn Central Transportation Company had not been denied the use of its air rights entirely It could develop them —subject to the landmark Preservation Commission's approval --or transfer them to neighboring properties via this early TDR program In the years after the Penn Central decision, the city created a special subdistrict around the station, and rights from Grand Central can be transferred anywhere within this area Transfers from the Grand Central Station Subdistrict included 75,000 square feet of devel- opment rights to the Philip Moms Building on the southwest corner of Park Avenue and 42nd Street in 1979 More recent transfers to the Bear Stearns headquarters in 1998 and two other Madison Avenue sites in 2000 total hundreds of thousands of square feet Yet., over a million square feet of development rights are still left for the station's owners to transfer .................................................................................................. PRESERVATION BOOKS Can a TDR system work without zoning? Without historic districts? TDRs can work without traditional Euclidean zoning or traditional historic districts so long m there is enough demand for development on the would-be receiving parcels to create a market for the transfer- able development rights. In most cases, there has to be some land - use restriction (even if not zoning) that will be lifted or shifted as a result of the transfer in order to create a demand or market for development rights. On the other hand, TDRs can be equally effec- tive with or without historic dis- tricts so long as the sending properties are otherwise identified, such as by a landmark ordinance or through a qualitative standard. Local Government Authority to Enact a TDR Program As with zoning, historic preserva- tion, and most planning tools, state enabling legislation permit- ting use of the tool should be in place before a local government enacts a TDR program. This may not be an issue in home role states, where communities can take on those powers not explicitly with- held or reserved at the state level. Consult with legal counsel famil- iar with state laws to determine if authority exists for a TDR program and what legal requirements govern its adoption. Most likely, the legal requirements will be similar to the state's zoning and/or comprehm- sive planning requirements. In some cases enabling legislation for land use is already broad enough to permit TDRs. Basic TDR Mechanics There are five general steps most programs need to follow: 1. Define therights to be transferred. 2. Provide a mechanism to sever them from the sending property. 3. Transfer them, typically in exchange for money, to another property where the development is better suited. 4. Apply them to the receiving property by a variance from local land -use laws. 5. Place long-term or permanent restrictions on the sending property. Let's examine each step in greater detail. 1. Define Rights to be Transferred One of the most important questions in understanding or designing a TDR program is what right the seller will be transferring. Basically, what right will be removed from the sending property? Theoretically, the seller could be foregoing any right on the property given the current land - use restrictions. Imagine a historic home located on a substantial lot in an otherwise densely developed urban area. The property owner may be torn between seeking to preserve the integrity of the green space around the building and realizing the potential profit of subdividing and/or developing the unused areas of the parcel. If the local govern- ment wishes to create incentives for landowners like this one to pro- tect similar landscapes, it could allow the owner to transfer a right associated with that unused space. Perhaps the program would allow the sender to transfer the housing units or the area or vol- ume of potential commercial space that otherwise could be built on the lot. Even if the right to build was already limited by local laws, the sender could forego paving the site to make a parking lot and transfer that right to another landowner. Remember, a local government establishing a TDR program can define the rights to be transferred as specifi- cally or broadly as it wants to, from large to small sets of square footage or from housing units to parking spaces. In this situation, selling the potential parking spaces as a development right to another landowner would allow the buyer to build a parking garage or construct underground parking on his own lot. Regardless, there must be a con- nection between the threat on the sending resource, the right to be transferred, the potential impacts of development in the receiving area, and the incentive given to the receiver. In the above example, a threatened landscape could be pro- tected by limiting any of a variety of rights. The important point to remem- ber is that TDR programs can pre- scribe which rights can be transferable. If the perceived threat in the example was the loss of the building (not the landscape), allowing the owner to sell tradi- tional development rights, such as unused square footage, will allevi- ate growth pressures more than the transfer of parking spaces. �. ..... .... ........ ...... I.. .... ................... .... ..... .......................P.R.E. a..6..RVA.-.T.I.O.N ...B.O.O.-K.S. Calculating Development Rights The standard method of defining most preservation TDRs is to calcu- late the difference between the total volume or square footage allowable under the baseline zoning and the total volume of square footage of the existing building. In short, what could be built on the lot minus what is already built there equals the transferable rights —the unused development potential of the lot. Washington D.C., San Francisco, and New York City —three of the more successful preservation TDR programs all use this method. One question that must be answered at this stage is whether the calculation will be offset by other development considerations and/or laws outside of the city's control. For example, if soil condi- tions or state laws make a portion of the lot unbuildable, should the landowner be able to transfer the right to develop that portion of the property u if it were developable? This is less of an issue with preser- vation TDRs than it is with open space TOR programs, but depend- ing on the objectives of the com- munity, it bear; consideration. Alternatively, a jurisdiction may elect to provide development rights in excess of a 1:1 ratio. The City of Denver, for exam- ple, utilizes this approach. Historic property owners who choose to rehabilitate their buildings can receive a density bonus of four square feet for each square foot of the rehabilitated structure. In essence, they can transfer the right to build a stmchre four times the size oftheir landmark building to a devel- oper in the same district To qualify, the rehabilitation must conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the standards of the land- mark preservation commission, or to the Denver Building Code. (See subsection 59-223(b) of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver, Colorado.) * Severance and Cemfrcatlon A landowner can sever and sacri- fice property rights of his own accord, such w with the donation of a preservation easement. These are the same rights —in most cases —that the owner transfers in the TDR process. One issue under a TDR program is how to define these rights as something separate from the property itself so that their transfer can be documented. Remember the idea of property Tights as a bundle of sticks. Each of those sticks is figuratively stuck in the ground because the rights come with land ownership. Severance is the act of pulling those sticks out of the ground; it is the legal step of separating the right from the property. The severance procedure can vary between cities, and in some cases, the local government may want to approve or certify the rights to be transferred separately from and prior to the transfer itself. Typically, the administrator for the TDR program issues the property owner a certificate that sets forth the amount and quality of the avail- able transferable development rights. For example, the govem- ment might define the transferable rights as one certificate for 50,000 square feet of mused space and allow the owner to transfer all or part of it; alternatively, the same owner could receive 50 indivisible certificates each worth 1,000 square feet of unused space. The rights must be clearly defined before the transfer so that the owner knows how many and which sticks he's giving away, but at what point does he take the sticks out of the ground? Some communities certify the rights and declare them transferable in advance of the transfer; these sys- tems only require the severance (or sacrifice) to be made legal at the time the rights are transferred and Several buildings in Denvet_ Colo- have taken advantage of the Ws TDR program including the Navarro Building (pictured here), the Denver Athletic Club, and the Odd Fellows Hall applied to the receiving property. Denver follows this latter tech- nique in its ordinance, which reads: "Upon the issuance of a cer- tificate of undeveloped floor area by the zoning administrator, unde- veloped floor area shall be created and shall be an independent right in the owner to whom the certifi- cate is issued and may be trans- ferred Such transfer need not be made appurtenant to another zone lot until a permit is requested using the undeveloped floor area." (Subsection 59-223(b)(3)f.5.) It is worth noting that the Denver cer- tificate of undeveloped floor area -Phdagr*h by Seth Mkhar. ..R.aSa.....RVAT....I.O.N.... WO' OK;...........................................................................................� P reads: "The future development of this property is physically limited as a result of this certification." In contrast, other communities issue the certificate only after the property owner has duly recorded a deed restriction or some sort of persnanent protection into the chain of title for the property (see the sec- tion below on protection). This early protection requirement with- holds from property owners the physical papers they will need to sell their rights until the rights are legally severed by other means. 3. Transfer Procedures The transfer of development rights is essentially a private transaction, though in most TDR programs — preservation and environmental conservation alike —the transaction is supervised or even approved by the local government. For example, although certificates remain in a government registry, negotiation over price is a private affair. Here is another important dis- tinction between different types of TDR programs —those with con - currency requirements and those that treat TDRs as commodities. Concumarcy requirements are rules built into the design of the TDR program and its ordinances that force the transfer of TDRs to occur at the same time as the appli- cation for the variance from the local land -use laws. A developer seeking to use TDRs to build above a height restriction, for example, would be required to find a willing sender at the same time he proposes his development and requests the variance from the height restriction. The challenge this creates is a disincentive for the developer because there are increased transaction costs in find- ing a seller willing and ready to sell at precisely the right time. Depending on motivations, community interest, and taxation issues, the community may choose to treat TDRs as commodities, meaning they can be purchased by anyone, and bought, sold, or even held freely, and there is no rule requiring concurrency between transfer and development. This model better accommodates the desires of interested nonprofits, alleviates timing concerns, favors the developer's schedule, and per- mits the operation of TDR banks. (For an explanation of TDR banks, see page 12.) How much are TDRs going to sell for? The answer depends on a number of different factors: • What rights will be surrendered? • How much is the protected prop- erty worth, as is and as fully developed under the local law? • How much would a comparable preservation easement be worth? • How much will the property's assessed value for tax pur- poses be reduced as a result of the transaction? What is the ratio of develop- ment to unused rights on the sending pamel? What rights are gained by the receiver? What is the profit to be gained by the variance or bonus that comes with applying the TDRs to the receiving property? • What would the developer be willing to pay for the variance or bonus? What would a rea- sonable impact fee be for the increased development? How much development pres- sure is on the community —both the sending and receiving areas? Depending on the characteris- tics of the property and the factors listed here, TDRs can sell from between 25 percent to 90 percent of the property's estimated value if it were fully developed. Again, the importance of a balanced sys- tem both in terms of program suc- cess and in price setting cannot be underestimated. 4. Application — Buyer's Incentive The transferred rights can be used to lift or shift any development restriction. The most common mechanism gives the receiver addi- tional square footage or increased volume, but other programs pro- vide additional housing units, grant bonus floor -area -ratio, or raise the height restriction. Essentially, transferred development rights are useable by the recipient for what- ever purpose the community decides they are worth, because it is the local land -use ordinances — the TDR ordinance specifically — that determine how the rights will be applied to the property. One important aspect to keep in mind during program design is that the bonus —whatever it may be —needs to be an incentive for the receiver; hence, it must be something receiving developers want enough to pay for it. With environmental protection TDRa— especially those programs in underdeveloped areas —this can be easier to accomplish if devel- opment pressures are strong and TDRs can make a substantial dif- ference in the amount of develop- ment allowed. The challenge in preservation TDRs—especially those in developed areas —is that the difference for the developer between building with and with- out the TDRs is not always as sub- stantial as under conservation TDR programs because the send- ing parcel is already developed. 0.....................................................................................P.R.E.S..E.R.V. VAT...I.O.N..B.O. O.-K.S. The Chattahoochee Hill Country 40,000-acre area of undevel- oped land south of downtown Atlanta —adopted a TDR program in the spring of 2003. The principal goal of the program was to redirect growth pressures in the area to nodes designated for increased development. For that reason, the entire community was designated as a sending area except for the receiving area nodes. In this situation, no downznning was required --the entire comanuoity was zoned for 1:1 development, meaning one house per acre. That underlying zoning was kept, and landowners in either the sending or receiving areas can develop to those specifications without special per mis- sion. However, landowners in the receiving area cart develop up to 14 units par acre. For each additional unit a developer wishes to build, he most acquire one TDR, meaning one acre somewhere else will be pro tected­one unit, one acre. Here, the development pressure is strong and the bonus substantial enough ttat vast amounts of land can be conserved That is not to say that the incen- tive cannot be compelling for developers receiving TDRs under a preservation program. Careful thought ­and research —must be given to what developers want and need in the potential receiving areas. In addition, it is often most effective if there ere a limited number of ways in which develop- ers can receive the bonuses they seek. For example, if because of an overall height cap, a developer can earn the sane increased floor -area ratio by either purchasing MRS or by designing the building with plazas, pedestrian -friendly fea- tures, and other amenities, many developers will choose the latter option as easier and more efficient, especially if those amenities are something they likely would have built anyway. ........ .... .................. PRaaERVATION BOOKS }60 Local landmarks such as the Mazer Theater, shown here, are eligible to sever and transfer their development tights under the city of San Francisco's TDR program — Photo by JwvWbr CMMoSRus San Frandw San Francisco's TDR program lust celebrated its 20th year and Is considered one of the most prolific programs, with dozens of transfers in its illustrious record The program's success is due to a number of critical details First, the program was adopted as part of a larger comprehensive plan in 1985, simulta- neously with the designation of the downtown's architecturally significant buildings —an assembly now numbering more than 250 buildings, each of which is a sending parcel. Part of that plan includes strict architectural controls on these significant structures, creating an adequate supply of TDRs Second, rights can be transferred from any of those architecturally significant buildings to any other lot in the zoning district The only exception is that contnbuting and significant prop- erties cannot also be receiving parcels. Third, and perhaps most important, with the trio of the comprehensive plan, historic destg- nations, and TDR program also came the downzoning of the downtown area This reduction In density created an incentive for transfers (and therefore preservation) because no other mechanism exists by which developers can exceed the density restrictions set by the plan Funds generated from Seattle s TDR programs helped pay for Benamya Hall, home of the Seattle Symphony —Phoiognph by Daw Lpa Z i S 5. Permanent Protection After the rights are defined, sev- ered, transferred, and applied, the final question that remains is how the sending property will be pro- tected. This can be accomplished in one of two ways: a deed restric- tion, such as an easement, or a recorded agreement between the sender and the municipality. These documents are recorded in the chain of title to prevent the development of the sending prop- erty in violation of the forfeited rights. Either a deed restriction or recorded agreement will accom- plish the same goal of preventing the property owner from using the rights she transferred, though the latter runs a certain risk. The drawback to the recorded agree- ment is that it can be voided; if the property owner and government officials both change their posi- tion on the protection of the his- toric building, an agreement can be rescinded, while other more permanent deed restrictions can- not. Some communities have avoided this problem by requiring a third party —such as a preserva- tion -oriented nonprofit organiza- tion —to sign the agreement as well, meaning the agreement can- not be voided as easily. Still other communities require the sending property owners to donate preservation easements to qualified organizations. Most con- servation TDR programs require permanent easements to be recorded as part of the transfer process. Surprisingly, some preser- vation TDR programs do not require permanent protection. Decisions regarding the degree of protection that will be required are political and, obviously, variable. The advantage of conditioning the use of TDRs on the donation of a preservation easement is the perma- nence it affords (although easements can be dissolved and lifted in extreme .circu stances). Temporary protection, such as short-term or con- ditional easements, is easier to nego- tiate and require. Also, it is possible that temporary protection is a better, more flexible reflection of the mar- ket's demand Some communities have chosen to limit the restriction on the sending property to the same length of time the bonus or receiving project exists, which affords the transfer a temporary, though long - fern, quality that apreservation ease- ment does not have. Other temporary protections vary. The sending sites in Seattle's TDR program, for example, are downtown buildings with less than baseline density that are either his- toric buildings, affordable housing, or compatible infrll development. The development rights are quanti- 0..................................................................................PR.E..S.E.RVAT...I.O.N..B.O. O.K.S. tied in square footage, specifically the difference between a baseline of floor -area -ratio and the land- mark's square footage. In the Seattle, the sending building must be restored or rehabilitated to qualify to trans- fer the unused development rights. Historic theaters have pri- ority in the process, and the city - created TDR bank has been very successful, as have its arts - related TDR programs, espe- cially in funding construction of the Benaroya Symphony Hall. For the first 12 years of the Seattle TDR program, the city was the sole purchaser of rights, which came from historic build- ings as well as low-income hous- ing. Later, these rights and others from major performing arts facil- ities would be sold to developers and the funds used for rehabilita- tion and new construction. Furthermore, the city requires the sending and receiving site owners to record an agreement that the landmark will be preserved for the life of the new building. As a result, the Seattle TDR program requires both rehabilitation and long-term protection. Some critics believe that despite Seattle's note- worthy success stories, the pro- gram is, overall, flawed because the baseline floor -area -ratio from which the TDRs are taken is too low and the historic preservation TDRs require additional reviews that are not required far other den- sity bonuses, such as affordable housing (which is where Seattle's program is most prolific). In addi- tion, a proximity restriction on transfers within retail areas (the development rights must be trans- ferred on the same block) is con- sidered too limiting by some. Beyond the common require- ment of a deed restriction, Philadelphia, for example, has an additional safeguard to ensure the preservation of the sending site. When the TDRs are sold, all pro- ceeds are placed into an escrow or trust account for future mainte- nance or rehabilitation of the his- toric building. The work is then reviewed by the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Only a small minority of the programs require sending property owners to use the proceeds for rehabilita- tion, and some, like Seattle, require the sending site to be reha- bilitated in advance, Balancing Supply and Demand To be successful, a TDR program must be carefully balanced in both supply and demand. The balance can be @rown offby a number offactors: The sending area is too limited. If there are too few historic land- marks to provide development rights for buyers whose ability to develop relies on TDRs, then development in a receiving area could occur at a less -than -desir- able pace. Sizing the sending and receiving areas carefully and the use of build -ors models will help to avoid this problem. Keep in mind that the ratio at which rights are exchanged does not have to be 1:1. A small sending area can ap- ply a large receiving area if each TDR is worth a substantial amount of development to the buyer, such as if the rescue of one significant building allows the construction of additional square footage at a 1:2 or 1:5 ratio. Senders are unwilling to transfer. It is possible but rare that the own- ers of the sending properties may be unwilling to transfer their rights. Some may see greater financial benefit in retaining their development rights, while others may be reluctant to support a par- ticular development without hav- ing a voice in its design, and others may be opposed to the increased density on principle. Because TDR exchanges are inter- personal transactions, there is always a possibility that personal issues and politics may affect the market Understanding the com- munity and delineating a suffi- cient and diverse sending area will help address this problem The receiving area is too limbed Perhaps worse than insufficient supply is insufficient demand. If the receiving area is not large enough to create adequate demand for transferred rights, then sending property owners will have less of an incentive to preserve. This is obviously a problem where TDRs are being relied upon as a motiva- tor or as mitigation for the eco- nomic impact of historic district or landmark designation, because the TDRs won't have economic value. The receiving area is overdeveloped This problem is not one of quantity but rather quality. For example, TDR programs that require senders to transfer the rights to an adjacent lot should first examine the inten- sity of existing development around landmark buildings. If most are already surrounded by substan- tial development, either there will be a lack of interest in the incen- tive, or worse, the program will backfire and create an incentive for adjacent landowners to build higher or larger in order to use the TDRs, possibly demolishing their buildings in the process. The same can be true of district -wide or inter - district TDR programs. P..R.aS...B.RVAT....I.O.N.... BO...KS ..........................................................................................0 O There is no growth in the receiving area. Further causes of insufficient demand include poor selection of receiving areas or an overestima- tion of development pressures in the receiving areas. If there is insuf- ficient demand to buy development Tights because of a temporary downturn in the market, the major danger will be the loss of an incen- tive to historic property owners. Alternatively, if the TDR pro- gram is primarily a mitigation mea- sure, then such owners are already prevented from altering or demol- ishing their properties; the problem of restless or litigious landowners without a place to sell their MRS can be easily solved by a TDR bank (see below). Ifthe program has been designed to create an incentive for designation or rehabilitation, then insufficient demand for MRS will lead to less preservation activity. If the problem is a lasting disin- terest in development in the receiving areas, then the TDR pro- gram is not functioning as it should, either because the choice of receiving areas was poor for any of a variety of reasons or because other aspects of the program (such as its procedures) are flawed. One possibility in this situation is to redefine the receiving area or alter the program to increase the incen- tive to develop in those areas; this choice will vary based on the situ- ation. In contrast, if the problem is a temporary downturn in the mar- ket —where development has declined throughout the commu- nity, not just in particular areas —it is likely better to wait out this cycle in the economy. TDR Banks TDR banks facilitate the purchase and sale of MRS. Some banks my surpass the role of intermediary between conservation -minded sell- ers and pro -development buyers by buying MRS from ready sellers and holding them until willing buy- ers arrive on the market. The banks are typically nonprofit institutions supported by revolving funds and donors. Sometimes a local govern- ment itself may serve as the bank. The types of entities that can serve as TDR banks m well as how they can and should operate are typ- ically issues determined by state TDR enabling legislation. hi the absence of such guidance, either a nonprofit organization or an agency of the local government can serve as the bank, so long as there is no con- flict of interest and nothing to pro- hibit it in state law. Some systems allow any conservation or preserva- tion nonprofit to hold TDRs, which eliminates the need for a formal bank while allowing nonprofits to play an important part in the process. As a result, preservation groups can guide new development using the rights they sell, support the cause of preservation directly by protecting sending parcels, and often stabilize a sluggish market. A bank or other TDR holder on its own, however, is never a guaranteed way to balance supply and demand Some nonprofit organizations, including but not limited to TDR banks, purchase development rights to "retire" them, meaning to take them off the market and pre- vent that development perma- nently. One issue that is not clear legally is what these nonprofit groups can or must do in order to "retire" the rights; is it enough if the certificates aredestroyed or an official announcement made? It isn't settled in every state whether rights can officially be retired or destroyed by a holder who seeks to dissolve those rights. For the most part, nonprofit organizations seeking to do this may, in the future, still be able to resell those rights, though to this author's knowledge, no one has yet tried. Purchase of Development Rights Programs TDR banks hold development rights until a willing buyer comes along, shifting administrative costs from the seller and buyer to the bank operator. Purchase of Development Rights programs (PDR), in contrast, involve acquisi- tion of development rights by the local government to `retire" those rights. In PDR programs, perpetual casements or other permanent deed restrictions are required because the rights will never be returned to the sender or applied by a receiver. Along with this advantage of permanence, PDR programs can be administratively simpler than TDRs, especially if executive offi- cials can set aside a portion of the budget for MRS or if the purchases are funded by grants. Nonetheless, MRS have the disadvantage of requiting public funding for comer- vation, taking the issue away from the market. In addition, they work best for purposes of mitigation and do not work as a growth manage- ment tool, since the rights will not be applied elsewhere. MRS and Tewdowns One particularly appealing feature of MRS for preservationists is how they can be used to calm the teardown trend. For the purposes of this booklet, a "teardown" is not just any demolition but specifically the destruction of an older home to build a larger, incompatibly -scaled home. Terdowns are not a result of growth pressure per se because the new development that replaces older, modest single family houses is still a single family residence. A community becomes no denser as a result of teardowns, the buildings just get bigger. Unfortunately, no one solution exists for the teardown problem; MRS are just one potential tool is.. .... .... .... ........ .......... ............. .... ...................P.R.E..aG..R.VAT....1O..N..B..00...K.S. in the preservationist's arsenal. Depending on the cor mirmty, they can be effective either as an incen- tive to landowners not to succumb to teardown pressure in as a miti- gation measure if a historic neigh- borhood is downzoned in terms of house size to prevent teardowns and over -scaled additions. Even a single inappropriate or incompati- bly -scaled addition or new home can dismpt one block's streetscape. The effectiveness of MRS, how- ever, may be limited without broad participation. Some holdouts may choose to demolish and rebuild after most of the block is protected by the TDR program. Property val- ues are generally diminished by this sort of infusion. Finally, a TDR program for pm- tecting historic residential neighbor- hoods threatened with teardowns requires (1) that the neighborhood be designated as a sending area and (2) that there be a receiving area able to accept the increased devel- opment Adjacent -lot MILE and dis- trict -wide MRS are inappropriate in this case, while interdistrict MRS will be most effective. The Role of Unified Lot Zoning As explained earlier, adjacent -lot TDRs are programs which requite that the unused development rights be transferred to a lot contiguous to, across from, or cattycomer from the sending lot. One variation on this system is unified lot zoning (ULZ), aka. combined lot development or lot merger. The ULZ approach brings urban design principles into play and essentially eliminates the transfer step while accomplishing similar goals to adjacent -lot TDRs. In fact, New York City's TDR pro - grain evolved out of its merged lot zoning technique. Under ULZ, adjacent lot own- ers apply to the local government to be treated as a single lot for the purposes of applying land -use laws. The form and size of the new building can be quite differ- ent because the development can be clustered as if the lots were legally merged into one. The advantage of ULZ is it pro- vides a simplified process similar to project or design review with increased control by the local government. (Some communities choose to monitor development rights transfers or have increased design review over the application of development rights, especially in urban areas but not all do.) In our scenario, for example, the local government might place a limit on design and height to control the possible incompatibilities of scale that can result from ULZ treatment Why would property owners want to pursue ULZ? The advan- tages are quite similar to MRS; in most cases, there will be a private cash exchange or transfer of some other benefit to the owner of the landmark property "transferring" the undeveloped density. Such bargaining will be totally private and uncontrolled in a ULZ sys- tem, and permanent protection is not typically required, though the city does record the unification. Why would the local govern- ment want to pursue ULZ instead of TDR? ULZ offers the local gov- erment more control over the final product that arises from develop- ment adjacent to and around signif- icant landmarks. Overall height, scale and massing can be con- trolled more closely, as can other finer details of the design, under ULZ but are not typically so closely watched under TDR. One disadvantage that remains is the same major disadvantage as Win - cent -lot TDRs. Transferring den- sity or development rights to a contiguous lot can create sharp dis- parities in scale or volume between the historic building and the new development in the absence of sen- sitive design or powerful review. The counter argument is that ULZ allows for a more involved design review process aimed at compati- bility in which the landmark prop- erty owner also has a voice —an element missing from TDRs unless the landmark owner demands con- trol as a condition of the transfer. Downzoning and the Transfer of "Existing Development" Rights Downzoning is not always neces- sary for the creation of a TDR pro- gram, nor is it always necessary for the program's success. If existing land -use restrictions are already structured in such a way w to cre- ate adequate supply of and demand forTDRs, and if lifting and shifting those restrictions is acceptable to the community and parallel with its objectives, then the existing zoning can be left alone. For example in Fulton County, Ga., downzoning was not necessary because the community was satisfied to take the chance that landowner: would build either to the new densities available with TDRs m to the pre- vious standards. Whether it is nec- essary in your community is a question to be answered by your planners and your citizens. In rare circumstances, a commu- nity will downzone and non -his- toric obsolete buildings that no longer conform to the land -use laws will be left, larger than the new buildings around them. While such buildings could be grandfa- thered in (or amortized out), the community may instead want to give the landowner an incentive to replace the obsolete building with a code compliam, smaller building. MRS give them the ability to do .......................... ... ............................ I............................� PRESERVATION BOOKS that, as they did in Santa Barbara, Calif. There, the city allowed such landowners to transfer the differ- ence between the old building and the new building to another site free of the city's development quota system. Such programs are referred to as Transfer of Existing Development Rights. Voluntary TDRs One motivation for TDRs is to encourage or create incentives for designation and/or rehabilitation, and in this way, most programs function as an active incentive pro- moting the community's goals and plans, including preservation. Some TDR programs, however, serve as passive incentives for preservation. In such cases, TDRs aren't about growth management or active preservation; they aim to provide an option to local residents who already have an interest in and tendency toward conservation or preservation but are seeking a greater incentive than the deduc- tion available for an easement donation. The local government (or TDR bank) can capture those transferable development rights, which can then give them an increased degree of control later over developments that would seek to buy and use those TDRs. Seattle has done this with numer- ous projects created using rights the city collected in small incre- ments over more than a decade. Lessons from the Field Beyond the theory and scholarship on TDRs, important lessons can be learned from actual TDR programs. 1. Integrate TDRs into a comprehensive plan. The most successful programs do not approach TDRs as a tool solely for preservation. Rather, they combine consideration of historic preservation concerns with other community issues such as growth, aesthetics, housing, and so forth. This is not to say that TDRs cannot be adopted sepa- rately from a full comprehensive planning effort and succeed, but like any planning or preservation tool, they rely on the research and deliberation that comes from com- prehensive community planning. Some of the most active pro- grams, such as San Francisco, were adopted simultaneously with and as a part of a greater plan. Likewise, the Seattle program was also adopted with a new downtown plan. Timing, however, is not always the key. Some programs, like New York City's TDR system, were adopted independently and have proven suc- cessful as a means of furthering the community's greater economic and growth goals and adapting to chang- ing conditions in the city. Z Keep infrastructure in mind. One key point to remember here is the relationship between TDRs and infrastructure. Receiving sites logically may require additional infrastructure to meet the demands resulting from increased density. Some TDR programs have faltered because they failed to take into account this need and did not have adequate infrastructure in place and new infrastructure could not be added as needed. For example, in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, in the 1980s, receiving sites had to be able to connect to the public sewer but were not given special consideration under the town's growth -neutral policy that limited sewer connections based on lot frontage. The sewer policy was amended in the 1990s to connect more lots, and the TDR program was amended to allow sites with on -site sewage disposal to be receiving sites as well. With maximum density bonuses of greater than 200 percent and ade- quate infrastructure (now), the program will likely be more suc- cessful in the future. 3. Don't put too much trust in the market In some communities, the success of a TDR program will always be mea- sured in quantity —the number of transfers, or the number of buildings protected —rather than quality --the benefits the projects generate and the significance of the buildings that were saved. Communities con- cemed with quantity should not depend on the market alone to make the program work. Temporary downtums have been known to cast programs in a negative view in the public's eye, but as market -based tools, TDR programs are at the whim of the market For communities using TDRs as an incentive to designate (or reha- bilitate), relying on the market is too risky for the resources. Having a TDR bank that functions as a willing buyer can compensate for a sluggish market, though commu- nities like San Francisco have cho- sen not to create TDR banks precisely to avoid interfering in the market's influence on pricing. Planners and preservationists should be prepared to fight for high quality development and preservation in the early uses of the TDR program. This will accomplish two goals. First, high profile transfers for projects that community can be proud of will convince citizens of the program's success in terms on quality. Second, these early efforts will set a precedent for future projects. ..................................... .................. ................... • PRESERVATION BOOKS 4. Use a simple formula for calculating TDRs and limitations. The most effective systems use the simplest ratios for applying MRS, such as 1:1 or 1:4. Most of the suc- cessful programs;, from New York to San Francisco, use a 1:1 transfer ratio, such as for each square foot of unused space, one square foot is added to the receiving parcel. Some calculate MRS in larger units, such as 100 or 250 square feet, but still use a simple ratio. Keep in mind, the easier a system is to understand, the easier it is to use, and the more likely it will be used! That's not to say that a 1:1 ratio is the only answer, nor does it mean there should not be a clear cap on how many rights can be transferred. Refer back to the City of Denver, which goes beyond the standard method of calculating TDRs. In Denver, historic property owners who rehabilitate receive a density bonus of four square feet per square foot of the rehabilitated structure. The 1:4 ratio of this bonus is still fairly clear, as is the cap on receiving TDRs: no receiver can increase the develop- ment by more than six times the lot size. This establishes a clear but relative ceiling on development using TDRs, as do similar caps based on floor -area -ratio. 5. Keep the process simple. As with any planning tool, the more streamlined the process is the more effective and appealing it will be. The timing of key steps in the process, for example, should not be burdensome. Receivers should not be required to secure the transferred development rights before prelimi- nary project approval. If possible, municipal approval of the transfer itself (though not the project) should be munstenal or administra- tive in order to avoid additional review requirements; a well -pre- PRESbRVA'rrON BOOKS pared ordinance will make transfer approval unnecessary. If timing proves to be a hurdle, the procedure should be changed or a TDR bank created, an there will be as few gaps between the participants and their goals as possible. One challenge TDR programs sometimes neglect to deal with is the issue of landowner coopera- tion, especially with multiple sell- ers. If the ratio of transfers is such that multiple properties' worth of MRS must be required to attain the receiver's incentive, the increased difficulty of timing the transactions and negotiating with multiple sellers may prove greater than the incentive and stop poten- tial buyers in their tracks. The TDR program of Brisbane, Calif., is an excellent example of how small towns can use MRS and how even programs with enormous potential can be held back by overly complex proce- dures. Brisbane has a population of less than 4,000 people, but the resource it was seeking to protect by adopting MRS was the hill- sides and steep slopes in and around the town. These steeper areas are farther from and harder to serve with infrastructure, so they compose the sending area. Flatter areas closer to existing sys- tems are the receiving areas. For every 20,000 square feet of land protected in the sending zone, one additional housing unit can be built on a receiving lot. Nonetheless, this incentive has not proved strong enough to over- come the procedure's one prob- Iem. To acquire the development rights to 20,000 square feet of land would require the cooperation of multiple landowners, a feat no one has yet accomplished. Without a TDR bank, transfers under this procedure are simply too expen- sive in terms of transaction costs. & Know your community. The calculations, procedures, out- reach, and objectives of the TDR program may all be just right, but if the community itself is either opposed to the increased density of receiving area projects or is simply not interested in receiving the bonus, the TDR program will fail. 7. Don't provide too many other alternatives. As mentioned above, part of San Francisco's success stems from the fact that developers can't achieve increased density without buying TDRs. Where there is no alternative, the incentive to use MRS is obviously greater. In contrast, San Diego's Golden Hill TDR program proved to be short lived (1981-1989) because of a lack of consensus about the com- munity's planning goals. It is also clear that San Diego's program didn't create sufficient demand for receivers to buy MRS. Under San Diego's program, MRS could be used to am a den- sity bonus up to 24 percent, but there were comparable density bonuses for amenities related to other city goals, such as environ- mental protection and energy con- servation, affordable housing, and even specific design features. While these bonuses could com- bine with TDRs, in reality there wasn't sufficient demand for such densities; the underlying zoning already allowed 43 units per acre, 8. Keep the TDR program up to date with changes in the lant Atlanta, Ga., created a TDR pro- gram in 1980 and amended it slightly to facilitate downtown Atlanta's only tnmsfer—the tnmsfer of 80,000 square feet to an 800,000- squaro-foot tower adjacent to a local landmark known as The Castle. At the time the ordinance was enacted, and again when it was amended, Georgia had no enabling legislation to permit the program. That alone didn't cause a problem, as the TDR was presumably authorized under the general purview of the state's zoning and planning laws. However, in 1998 the state passed enabling legislation, which required, among other things: pro- tection of the sending parcel's character that would nm with the property (such as an easement); clear procedures for severance, delayed transfer, and exchange; monitoring of the exchange; the rights of the local government and individuals to purchase and hold TDRs; and explanation of the tax- ation of TDRs. Atlanta's ordinance was missing all of these features, either entirely, in part, or as the law was interpreted to intend them. While the City of Atlanta has begun exploring what needs to be done to update or revise its pro- gram, this legal limbo is a strong disincentive to landowners consid- ering using TDRs. Recipe for Success There is —unfortunately —no way to guarantee that a TDR program will work. That's the risk of mar- ket -based tools and any mecha- nism that leaves part of its chance for success in the hands of the public. Nonetheless certain ele- ments are essential for a success- ful TDR program, whether you measure success quantitatively or qualitatively. In addition, certain elements can nurture and support a TDR program including; L Supply If there are not enough TDRs available to transfer, or enough to make the transfers worthwhile, then the program will not be used. The number of TDRs available (and their relationship to the man - her needed by developers) will directly affect the success of the program. Too few will make trans- fers cost -prohibitive or too unman- ageable to pursue; too many will glut the market, drive down prices, and possibly force buyers to acquire from multiple landowners, which adds time and expense to the process. Beyond sheer quantity, it is important to remember that senders must have an incentive to sever and transfer their development rights. Some programs have had inade- quate activity because senders had more too gain by using their devel- opment rights than by transferring them. Strict controls on the sending area and/or lucrative transfer exchanges will keep the supply of development rights steady. Z Demand On the flip side of the coin from supply is demand; here the com- munity must be sure that what the bonus developers stand to gain is worth the time, effort, and money of acquiring development rights, which is not always as easy as it sounds. First, time and effort can be reduced by simple, easy proce- dures (see below), but price will be set by the market. The relationship of supply and demand needs to be such that the price will be reason- able for the bonus received. Second, the bonus must be something the developer wants and stands to gain in the end. The designers of the TDR program in Birmingham Township, Pa., fell victim to this problem; the restric- tion that will be lifted with the application of TDRs is the density restriction, but the real estate mar- ket and developers are most inter- ested in houses on large lots, hence there is more to be gained from developing without TDRs than with them. As with supply, both the quan- tity and the quality of TDR demand must be researched and planned for carefully. Finally, bear in mind that excessive TDR demand may indi- cate that the receiving areas should be expanded or the transfer ratio should be adjusted, depending on the community's goals. 3. Ease The third essential element of any TDR program is simple, efficient, easy procedures. For the increasing number of local governments try- ing to take a one -stop -shopping approach to development, this may be a familiar concept, though a chal- lenge to embrace. It is worth it to be careful in dratling the ordinance, designing the procedures, and even amending them if necessary in order to best facilitate transfers. Also, try to avoid requiring excessive review at any stage of the process, but especially of the transfer. This is particularly tricky, as one of the advantages of TDR for some communities is the opportunity to have heightened review of projects with greater than average effects on landmarks. This will vary from community to community, but keep in mind that having a TDR program with such clear guidelines that developers can almost be assured approval for projects that meet certain criteria ensures more transfers and there- fore more preservation. Further, the application of the rights isn't the only stage for review, so be careful of excessive oversight from the private parties' perspective. In Georgia, the state enabling legislation has been inter- preted to require municipal approval of all transfers, a step most communities wished to avoid to save on administrative costs as well as to facilitate transfers. 0................................................................................... .......... P R. E.A.NAT.IO.N BOOKS Finally, if possible, avoid requir- ing the cooperation of too many landowners in any given trans=F tion or project. This isn't always possible —and is even more chal- lenging in urban TDR programs where large landowners are less common —bra it is an important part of facilitating the TDR process with simple, easy procedures. If the numbers require multiple landown- ers be involved in most transac- tions, consider using a TDR bank as intermediary to gather develop- ment rights from a variety of landowners and package them for developer application. 4. Adaptability As most local governments slimily know, it is impossible to adapt the laws, policies, and pr000- du es to accommodate every sce- nario. Nonetheless, it is important that the local government monitor the TDR program to ensure it is accomplishing the community's goals and to assess whether it could easily be adapted to be more effective or efficient. S. Protection In the absence of specific docu- mentation or in the presence of corruption or mistake, a landmark property could be developed despite the sacrifice of develop- ment rights to the receiver. After the development rights have been severed from the sending property and transferred to the receiving parcel, some protection must be put into place to ensure the prop- erly is not developed using the transferred development rights. This protection may be temporary (a deed restriction for the life of the receiver's project or a 50-year easement), indefinite (a covenant with the city or county), or perma- nent (such as a preservation ease- ment). In any case, the sender should not gain the benefit of the transfer as well as the use of his forfeited rights or the public will be the one to lose. 6 Purpose To return to a question addressed earlier, a community does not need a historic district or even a land. mark ordinance to enact TDRs, even for preservation purposes. Furthermore, the TDRs don't need to rely on a preexisting list, nor does the ordinance need to create one. What a successful TDR pm - gram needs is a clear definition of what and where the sending and receiving parcels are. In addition, those parcels must be chosen based on rational criteria to support the greater purpose of the program. Undoubtedly, sending parcels can be defined geographically by delineating a historic district as a sending area, but that is not the only way. The definition of sending parcels can reference an existing designation, such as the National Register of Historic Places or a state -supported list. An important rule when using either of these lists is to reference the list as it exists on the day of the ordinance's passage and to include any new properties added to those lists after review. In addition, consider any consent issues that apply in your state. Additionally, sending properties can be defined qualitatively. For example, the TDR program could include all properties eligible for the National Register as deter- mined by the state historic preser- vation officer, or any lots with structures totaling less than a cer- tain square footage and older than a certain age. In the end, the TDR ordinance itself must also have a clear pur. pose, and all definitions —from sending parcels to the allocation of rights, from receiving parcels to the protection required —must relate to and support that purpose. Z A Nurturing Environment A TDR program's success is in substantial part reliant on the com- munity and the environment in which the program is enacted. There are certain characteristics of the environment (political, eco- nomic, etc.) in which TDRs are more likely to succeed. The community —from citizens to developers to leaders —needs to support the purpose of the TDR program and believe in its capac- ity to work as a planning tool of those goals. Politicsmeaning the conservative or liberal compo- sition of the com nunity--are unimportant, because as a pro - preservation, market -based tool, TDRs appeal to a variety of groups. What is important is com- munity consensus and outreach. The former can be dealt with by appropriate research; in some cases, TDRs will not be appropri- ate because of the opinions of one or more of those groups that com- pose the environment fm TDRs. Perhaps the leaders are adverse to innovation or the risk involved in market -based tools. Regardless, belief in TDRs and persuasion efforts should not overpower an objective assessment of whether or not the community supports TDRs. The second aspect of a support- ive environment is an informed community, including leaders and developers, as well as preserva- tion nonprofits. In this respect, a clear ordinance and simple pro- gram will translate into easy out- reach efforts. Potential senders and receivers, as well as preserva- tionists, other advocates, journal- ists, real estate professionals, and many others in the community should understand the basics of how the community's TDR pro- gram will work. Finally, the third characteristic of a nurturing environment for TDRs is growth. While not every P R B S B R VAT 1 0N BOOKS TDR program must concentrate on growth management, there must be enough growth that some development is going on in the community, especially in the potential receiving area. In the best -designed TDR programs, where the incentive is strongest, developers will use TDRs to build somewhere that they would not have developed otherwise. Ultimately, if the community on the whole understands and sup- ports the TDR program, and the growth pressure is sufficient, a TDR program will be successful, in that it will generate transfers. What will make the quality of the preservation and the development projects successful depends on the substance of the TDR program as well as underlying land -use regu- lations. The transfer of develop- ment rights is a flexible tool that can direct growth in a variety of forms away from sensitive cul- tural resources. We'll be seeing it more often in coming years as the second generation of TDR pro- grams comes on the scene. Further Resources Books Daniels, Tom L. and Deborah Bowers. Holding Our Ground: Protecting America's Farms and Farmland. (Island Press 1997). Pmetz, Rick. Beyond Takings and Givings: Saving Natural Areas, Farmland, and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights and Density Transfer Charges. (Ade Press 2003). Pmetz, Rick. Putting Transfer of Development Rights to Work in California. (Solano Press 1993). Pmetz, Rick. Saved by Development: Preserving Environ- mental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights. (Arje Press 1997). Rose, Jerome G., ed. Transfer of Development Rights: A New Technique of Land Use Regulation. (Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University 1975). Wright, Robert R., et al. Land Use in a Nutshell (4th edition). (West Publishing 2000). Articles Johnston, Robert A. and Mary E. Madison. "From Landmarks to Landscapes." Journal of the American Planning Association vol. 63 Issue 3 (1997): 365-379. Pmetz, Rick. "Recent Trends in TDR." National Planning Conference Proceedings (2002). 9 June 2006, wwwasmedu/caed/ proceedings02/PRUETZIpmeahim. Websites 1000 Friends of Minnesota. Land Conservation Tools. (2005) www. l000fom. org/l ctools5. h tm American Farmland Trust. Transfer of Development Rights. (2001) www.farmland.org Cornell University. Jason Hanly- Forde, George Homsy, Katherine Lieberknecht, & Remington Stone. Transfer of Development Rights: Using the Market for Compensation and Preservation. http: //government. cce. comell. edu/ default.asp Pace Law School. Transfer of Development Rights: Series III: Innovative Tools and Techniques. www. pace. edu/IawschaaI/ landuse/btdrhtml About the Author Jennifer Cohoon McStous, M.H.P., J.D. is assistant professor of Historic Preservation and Urban Studies at the College of Charleston, where she teaches in undergraduate and graduate pro- grams in preservation and plan- ning. The author would like to thank Jamie Zwolak, her research assistant in 2006, for his work and support on this project, and Professor Laurie Fowler and Jamie Baker Roskie of the University of Georgia for the opportunity to work with the UGA Land Use Clinic from 2002-2004. 0.......................................................................................P.R.E. s..a.R.NAT....I.O.N ...B.O..OK..a. Offices of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Headquarters 1785.Massachusens Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) ,588-6296 Southern Field Office 1785 MissaJmsetts. 9venue, NW Washington. DC 20036 (201) 588-6107 (District of Columbia ..Matylarral Vagtma. West Pngima) Midwest Office 53 West Jackson Blvd Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60604-2103 (311) 939-5547 (]!(mars, Indiana laws. Michigan, Mmusi ci, Missouri. Ohio, Wisconsm) Northeast Office Seven Faneutl Hall Marketplace, 41h Flour Boston, MI 02109-1649 (617) 523-0885 (Connecticut, Maine Massachusetts, Ness. Hampshire. New York, Rhode Island Vermont) Northeast Field Office 6401 Germantown Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19144 (215) 848-8033 (Delaware, New Jersey Pennsylvania) Southern Office William Aiken House 456 King Soeet Charleston, SC29403-6247 (843) 722-8551 (.11abama, rlanda. Georgia, Kentucky Loutwana, Mcsstssippr North Carolina: South Carolina, Temressee, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands) Mountains/Plains Office .53516th Street, Suite 750 Denver, CO 80202-2910 (303) 623-1504 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nehraska North Dakotµ South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming) Southwest Office 500 Morn Street. Suite 1030 For t Worth, T.Y 76102-3943 (817) 332-4398 (likimsas, New Mesico, Texas, Oklahoma) Western Office The Hearst Building 5 Third Sweet Suite 707 San Fmncirco, C1 94103 (415) 947-0692 (Alaska, Among California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon Washington, Pacific island tenrtorm) Preservation BookY are published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation For a complete list oftitles call or write Preservation Books. National Dust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW' Washngton. DC20036 (202) 588-6286 FAY (202) 588-6113, or visit out web site at wwwpreservationbooks org Copyright 2007.National Trust for Hirtar to Preservation Ru hard Moe President National7hart fin Historic Preservation Peter Brink Senior Vice President Programs Katherine Adams Director Center for Preservation Leadenhip Elizabeth Byrd Wood Fditor Ron Woods Business Manager Natrona! 1Ywt Forum is a membership program for preservanomsts- f m board members to students, from architects to educators, from preservation commissioners to planners: from volunteers to restoration contractors Forum member ship provides you with the knowledge, tools and resources to protect )our community 4s• a Forum member you receive a vubseription to Piesesvation magazine. Forum Tomnal, and Fosusn News Benefits also include discounts on conferences and all publications hsted in the Preservation Books catalog as well as paiticipanon in financial/insurance assistance programs, technical advice and access to Forum Online, the online .system designed for the preservation community To loin send 3115 to National ]Putt Forum National Dust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avemae, NW Washington, DC20036 (202) 588-6296 www forvmnthp org NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION The National Dust for Historic Preservation, a private, non- profit membership organiza- tion, champions preservation byprowding leadership, educa- tion, advocacy, and resources to people working to preserve, improve, and enjoy the places that matter to them. Its Washington, DC headquarters staff, six regional gfices, and 28 historic sites work with the Dust's 270,000 members and thousands of local community groups in all 50 states. For mare information, visit the National Dust's website at w ..nadonaltrust.org. NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202.588.6296 Fax: 202.588.6038 www.nationaltrust.org MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MAY 10, 2018 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Kevin Boyd, Zach Builta, Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, G. T. Karr, Cecile Kuenzli, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT:, STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Rebecca Conard, Barbara Schwartz, Alicia Trimble RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Swaim thanked Commission members who attended the joint session with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION - UNITARIAN -UNIVERSALIST CHURCH, 10 SOUTH GILBERT STREET: Bristow said that Rebecca Conard, who worked on the nomination for the church, would have a presentation. Conard showed where the church is located on the comer of Iowa Avenue and Gilbert Street, right on the edge of downtown. She showed two photographs: an historic photograph of the church as it appeared around 1910 and a contemporary photograph of the church in 2016. Conard stated that the church was built in 1908. On the historic photograph, she pointed out where one can see, on the far right side between the church and the pole, that there is a house. Conard said that is a parsonage that was constructed in 1909. She said that it was replaced in 1962 with the education/office building known as Worthley House. Conard said it was razed as part of the current development project. Conard said this property is significant at the local level under Criterion C, architecture and design, of the National Register, along with criteria consideration A, a religious property that derives primary significance from its historic architectural importance. She said this building represents the coming together of two complementary strands of thinking about modern church architecture, with modern referring to early 20th century. Conard said the architect of the building was Edwin J. Lewis, Jr. from Boston. She said he was a Unitarian and well-connected with the American Unitarian Association. Conard said that Lewis had a very long career, during which he designed over 35 churches, most of them in the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 10, 2018 Page 2 of 11 Northeast and Canada. She added that three of those churches are currently on the National Register. Conard said that a 1902 publication called Plans for Churches, which the American Unitarian Association (AUA) commissioned and then issued, was intended to aid small parishes in constructing modest but dignified churches. She said that one of those plans was suggestion number two, one of the designs that Lewis contributed to the book. Conard said the church bears a striking resemblance to that design. She said that based on the design, Lewis came up with the plans for the Iowa City church, although there were separate plans, but she has been unable to find them. Conard said that all of the churches have a connection with the AUA, but a particular connection came through Robert Loring, who the AUA sent to Iowa City in 1907, specifically to oversee the building of this church. Conard said there were some very specific recommendations in the plans for the churches. She said that one of them was to not spend money on towers or steeples. Conard said the feeling was that one could have a dignified church without a steeple, and there would be no need for that expense. Conard said that another suggestion was to use ordinary building materials, such as wood or stone. She said that concrete or common brick laid in common mortar was acceptable. Conard said that on the interior, the architects who wrote the publication recommended that the constructional timbers be permitted to show - that it was less expensive than finishing the ceiling and added visual interest. Conard said that other suggestions were to use natural wood floors, carpeted only in the aisles; wooden pews that were very simple and without cushions; and windows that do not reflect the ignorant use of stained glass, by which they meant a kind of ostentatious use. She said the booklet states that windows could be made things of beauty by using pale, amber -colored cathedral glass cut and leaded in a diamond -shaped pattern. Conard said that all of these things were incorporated into the Iowa City church. Conard showed two historic photographs taken around 1910. She said they show the degree to which the Iowa City church really followed all of the main recommendations in the booklet and carried out in the design that Lewis created for the church. Conard showed contemporary photographs of the church. She said they show how much of that is left, including the original pews, all of the woodwork, the ceiling treatment, the exposed trusses and rafters, and the leaded glass windows in the fireside room. Conard said that another original feature is the organ, which was installed in 1909. She said the church did not originally have an organ but had hoped to have one. Conard said that a $500 contribution from Andrew Carnegie gave the church enough money to purchase a pump organ. She added that the mechanism for pumping is still in the closet to the right. Conard pointed out the pipes arrayed above the organ and in the chancel and said there are more in the closet to the right also. She said that this original organ was restored once, but she did not believe it is in playing condition and did not know what would happen to the organ in the rehabilitation process. Conard said that the second strand of significance comes through what is known as the Western Sisterhood of the Liberal Churches, the Universalist and Unitarian churches. She said HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 10, 2018 Page 3 of 11 this was a small but very influential group of women ministers who were active in the Midwest from about 1880 up until around World War I or a little after that. Conard said this group of women advocated, among other things, something called the church home idea. She showed a photograph of two of the women ministers at the center of this group: Mary Stafford and Eleanor Elizabeth Gordon. Conard said that Gordon was the pastor in Iowa City from 1896 to 1900. Conard said that both women came from Hamilton, Illinois, and their ministerial careers really intertwined throughout their lives. She discussed the career history of the two women. Conard said that Gordon eventually became the field secretary for the Iowa Association of Unitarian and Independent Churches (IAUIC). Conard said that in that capacity, Gordon really oversaw the financing and construction of the Iowa City church. Conard said the IAUIC really had a financial stake in the Iowa City church, having pretty much owned the previous church and being instrumental in securing the land for the present church and putting up most of the money. Conard said that Gordon worked closely with Loring, who was sent from Boston to be the pastor while the church was being built. She said it all came together quickly in 1908, and Gordon smoothed over ruffled feathers in the congregation to get this built. Conard said that the term church home meant that the liberal church should be home -like, should foster a sense of home fife, and be the center of community work. She said that in practical terms, this typically meant that the church was rather simple and did not have a steeple. Conard said this is also a reflection of the arts and crafts movement of the early 20th century. Regarding the interior, Conard said these women felt that a church home should be designed to create a domestic atmosphere. She said that when the church was dedicated on October 24, 1908, Gordon called the building a church home in her dedicatory remarks. Conard said that the fireside room on the main level as well as the assembly hall on the lower level really reflect a domestic feel with the fireplaces, the wood trim, the seating that is more comfortable than the pew, and the large kitchen off to the left of the larger assembly room. Conard said that in the bigger space, it is big enough to seat 80 people at table, so it was really used a lot for social events. She showed a photograph of what that looks like today, with the woodwork, the fireplace, and the double pocket doors that can be extended or closed. Conard said there has been one significant alteration to the exterior. She said the entrance was extended in order to enclose the steps going up to the sanctuary. Conard said that the alteration was very well done and was designed by Bill Nowysz and built in 1987. Conard said the plan shows the way the new roofline of the extension fits up under the roofline of the original portico. She said that the original doors were incorporated, and a transom was also created. Conard said that there are some less sensitive alterations to the rear. She said that some sections of wall were taken out in order to tie the church into the education office building and now to install an elevator. Conard stated that those changes are being incorporated into the entrance at the back of the building in the rehabilitation. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 10, 2018 Page 4 of 11 Swaim said that the new development is named Augusta Place. Conard said that it is named for Augusta Chapin, who came a little before the Western sisterhood group. Conard said that Chapin was the minister for nine or ten years from 1869 to the late 1870s. She said that Chapin is credited in the church history with building up the congregation at that time. Swaim said that this is now being reviewed at the State office. She said the State National Review Committee will look at this on June 8. Bristow said this is before the Commission, because the State always requires that the local CLG reviews and comments on any National Register nominations. She said there will be one form, which she distributed, to be filled out by Swaim and the Mayor. Bristow said the Commission needs to determine if the criteria, especially the main criterion C for architecture, are met. She said that if there are additional comments, the Commission may include them on the form or provide a letter if there are extended comments. Swaim asked if the Commission would like to consider adding criterion consideration A. Bristow said that the form does not have a location for that, but it could be written in the comments and added to the form. Michaud said that the Unitarian Church was the home of a lot of movements, including civil rights, human rights, suffrage, anti -war, etc. She said that it was really a home for progressive thought in Iowa City. Conard said that is the whole purpose of criterion consideration A. She said that every church is important for the work that it does. Kuenzli said that the National Register stipulates that to list a church on the National Register, it pretty much has to be for architectural significance. Conard said everyone recognizes that the Unitarian Church has been really quite important, and that is very important to the congregation. She said, however, that it is not something that the National Register would recognize, and that is why it is not in the nomination. She agreed that it certainly could be put in the letter to keep it in the record. MOTION: Boyd moved to approve the nomination that finds that the Unitarian Universalist Church building is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places in the following Criteria categories: Criterion C - Design/Construction - property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; and Criterion Consideration A - a religious property that derives primary significance from its historic architectural importance. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 11-0. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 725 Linn Street. Bristow said that staff recommended some changes, and the architect has sent new drawings that were distributed to the Commission. Bristow stated that this property is in the Brown Street Historic District. She said this looks like a pretty pristine example of its type, but the house went through some changes to get to this point. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 10, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Bristow said that in 1994, the Historic Preservation Commission approved the construction of a new front porch. She said that in 1997, the Commission approved the construction of the screened porch and deck that will be altered with this current project. Bristow said that the plan shows a screened porch and a deck on the back of the house. She said that the screened porch will be enclosed in the new project and become occupied space. Bristow said that a new screened porch will be built, mostly to match, on the back of it, and the deck will be extended along the side of this new screened porch to tie it in. Bristow said that staff worked with the architect and the owner early on with this project. She said there had been some other locations for the addition and some other things. Bristow said the basic idea is so that the owner can age in place by moving a bedroom and usable bathroom to the first floor. She said the original dining room from the house will become a bedroom, and the original bathroom under the stair will be able to be expanded to be a usable bathroom. Bristow showed the plan for the project, pointing out the existing and the proposed. She showed the new rear elevation, with the screened porch. Bristow said that all of the railing and things that were faithfully done with the original screened porch project will be reused as much as possible to be incorporated into the new screened porch. She said that the details of trim and siding on the house will all match. Bristow said she talked to the owner about the fact that if the screened porch were removed, the back wall would be exposed. She said that the back wall therefore really needs to be like the exterior of a house. Bristow said that is the reason that in the original report, staff recommended not approving a sliding glass door, because a sliding glass door wouldn't be approved on the exterior of a house. She said that is why that has been changed to a French door. Bristow said that it has a transom over it, which staff does not have any issues with. Bristow said the windows that would be incorporated from the new dining room into the screened porch would match the existing windows on the house. She showed the north side of the house and the south side. Bristow said that there is a screened porch that is being enclosed, and the screened porch is on piers; it doesn't have a solid foundation. She said that on the south side, however, that would be exposed. Bristow said that it would not look quite right to have an enclosed portion of the house that is just up on piers. She said the owner will be using panel and matching the foundation texture to enclose that. Bristow said that would not be visible on the north where the deck is or on the screened in porch. Bristow said the application mentioned one of the windows on the front of the house being replaced, but that is not currently under consideration. She added that staff will talk to the owner about repairing the window instead of replacing it, but it is not being replaced at this point in time. Bristow said that she does not yet have door product information for where the French door will now be. She stated that the windows are acceptable and have been approved on other houses of this era and type. Bristow said that the only thing left to be reviewed is the French door, and staff finds this to otherwise be an acceptable project. Kuenzli said that all of the windows on the house are double hung, but the window on the back of the house looks like a sliding window. She said it doesn't match the windows on the rest of HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 10, 2018 Page 6 of 11 the house at all. Bristow responded that the window is existing. She said she does not know how that came about. Schwartz said that she is the owner of this property. She said that there was a major remodel in 1982 before the Brown Street Historic District was ever designated. Schwartz said that the room where the window is located was converted from a bedroom to a master bath with a cathedral ceiling. She said that window was put in, because it was the only way to bring in a steam shower. MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 725 North Linn Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: the rear sliding door be changed to a French door and the French door product information is submitted for approval from staff and chair. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 11-0. 833 Rundell Street. Bristow stated that this house is in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. She said that the house has synthetic siding on it, and the front porch has been enclosed. Bristow showed the two sides of the front. She said that the main part of this project is to add dormers so that the upstairs would be completely usable space. Bristow said that staff has worked with the architect. She said this project originally had big shed roof dormers going along the whole side. Bristow said staff has worked with the applicant to try to minimize the inappropriate addition look that kind of dormer has on some of these small bungalow houses. Bristow said that from the front, it will still have that dormer look to it. She showed the site plan, which does not show the dormers but does show the other aspect of this project, which is a screened porch. Bristow showed the new plan. She said that off the back kitchen, there were a few stairs down to a door that went out back and then more stairs down to the basement. Bristow said that in order to have a rear door that enters onto the same level as the kitchen and to recapture some of the stair space and because there will be better stairs up to the second floor, the basement stairs would be moved to the front of the house. She said that therefore means that the rear door will be raised and put on the first floor, basically above where it originally was. Bristow added that on the front of the house, the front window will need to move over slightly to allow for the run of the stairs coming down the house. She said staff does not feel that this is an unacceptable change, because this window will actually look a little bit more centered from the porch when it is moved and because it does not have any other windows above it to align with. Bristow showed the second floor. She said that by adding the shed portion of the dormers, one can see that they step in a little bit. Bristow said the elevation shows that some of the bulk of the dormers has been reduced by having some gable roof projections with a smaller shed roof area in between. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 10, 2018 Page 7 of 11 Bristow showed the front of the house with the dormer. She said that from the side, one can see that instead of having that shed roof look all the way across the dormer, it has the ends with the gable roofs that really are the way the dormers should be on a house. Bristow said the guidelines discuss having small dormers in a scale that fits the house, with a wall that is composed mostly of window. Bristow said this house has those on the end, but in order to get enough usable space on the second floor, it really had to be increased. She said that the shed roof section is recessed and also has some windows. Bristow said that staff finds this to be an acceptable compromise to allow usable space and also keep to the idea of the guidelines. Bristow referred to the screened porch sticking out behind the garage on the side. She said that the house has shingles that would not normally be accepted if the whole house was being re - shingled. Bristow said that currently, the plan is to just match those with the new dormer and the new screened in porch. She said that this is impacting quite a bit of the roof here, so if the owners decide to reroof the whole house, they would use a shingle that would be appropriate. Bristow added that the house has the synthetic siding with a fairly wide lap, but staff is assuming that underneath there is a smaller wood lap. She said staff suggests that the new dormer use a lap similar to what the original would have been. Bristow said staff is hoping that when the owners remove some of the siding to incorporate the screened porch roof, they will be able to discover what that lap was and match it. She said the hope is that at some point the synthetic siding would be removed from the house. Bristow showed the other side of the house where the dormer is a match to the south side. She showed the screened in porch, saying that it would have skirting and otherwise meet the guidelines as well. Bristow showed the rear view of the house. Kuenzli asked if the second story is the same width as what is underneath it. She said that it looks top-heavy to her. Bristow said that it is typical for dormers to follow the line of the wall below up above the roofline. She said that when the roof comes down and the eaves extend past the wall of the house, that forms a visual break on the side where the dormer is. Bristow said that generally, one wants the wall of the dormer to be above the wall of the house below. She said that structurally, it is a lot easier to build that way, because it is bearing on the wall below. Bristow said that is a typical way that a dormer would be built. Bristow said that setting in the smaller part is an attempt to reduce the scale of that dormer. She said that the ridgeline on the dormer is lower than the ridgeline on the main house on purpose. Bristow said that is also to help with that sense of scale. MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 833 Rundell Street as presented in the application. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 11-0. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect - Chair and Staff Review. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 10, 2018 Page 8 of 11 415 South Summit Street. Bristow said this was an emergency call to approve the repair of the base of columns. 8 Bella Vista Place. Bristow said there are concrete stairs running up to this house from the street. She said that staff and chair approved replacing them to match with any code requirements. Minor Review - Staff Review. 431 North Lucas Street. Bristow said this house had a wheelchair ramp with an unacceptable, rotted railing. She said it needed to be rebuilt, so the owners are rebuilding it to meet current codes. Bristow said that instead of going straight to the driveway, it had to have a bend in it. 814 Church Street. Bristow said this house with its porch is in a book that discusses Goose Town cottages and what they look like. She said the original application was to remove this porch and make it different, but that is not being done now. Bristow stated that it is covered in synthetic siding, and the porch currently does not have any real support under the porch floor; it is totally rotted away. She said it therefore needs to be reconstructed, and she believes that the columns and the roof can be saved. Bristow said that the rest of it will probably have to be rebuilt. Bristow said that behind the synthetic siding, the original lap siding is there, but its condition is unknown. She said it has been tentatively approved to be replaced, depending on what is found. Bristow said that the new porch, except for the synthetic siding, will match what is there currently. Intermediate Review - Chair and Staff Review. 815 Brown Street. Bristow said this project involves a metal roof that will be replaced with a new metal roof to match it. She said that the condition of the roof is pretty bad. Bristow said that it has an addition in the back with a new metal roof, so that will be matched. She said that the modern metal chimney is no longer used, and staff and the chair approved its removal. 314 Summit Street. Bristow stated that the porch railing that was approved by the Commission for this house was spindles with a straight top rail instead of panels. She said the owners want to put a gooseneck in it, and staff did not see a reason not to, since it is all un-original anyway. Bristow said that it will have straight spindles. She said it was felt that having turned spindles with the gooseneck was not really appropriate, because this house does not rise to the level of some of the other houses on Summit Street that have that. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 10, 2018 Page 9 of 11 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 12, 2018: MOTION: Agran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's April 12, 2018 meeting, as written. Builta seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 11- 0. COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Future Preservation Summit Bristow said that Iowa has a great preservation summit at which preservationists are brought in and the host community gets to show off. She said that Iowa City has more designated historic properties than almost anywhere else in the State but has never held the Preservation Summit. Bristow said the Commission has discussed the 2020 summit and has also discussed it with the State. She stated that if Iowa City hosts the 2020 Preservation Summit, it must apply this August for a CLG grant to finance some of the work. Bristow said that the Chamber of Commerce would help with some of the general work of setting up the Summit. She said that if the City would wait until 2021, the State might consider holding the Summit in western Iowa again, so the result might be hosting the summit in 2022. Bristow said that staff is very busy and said that this might require forming a subcommittee of the Commission. She said, however, that staff really recommends that the grant be applied for to hold the 2020 Summit. Bristow said that it is well past time for Iowa City to host this event. Bristow stated that this will take some organization. She said it will require volunteers to do some of the work at the summit, but it will also bring about 300 or more people who all like preservation into the community. Swaim said it would be a day and one-half or two days of sessions, with possibly three sessions at the same time. She said it would involve finding spaces for those and finding people to introduce the speakers. Swaim said it would probably involve having some tours as well. She said there is usually a dinner with a keynote speaker. Swaim said this gets the host community to realize how much is here to see. She said it is a way of building some capital within the community. Trimble said it is also a way to let community leaders know that historic preservation is important. She said that once they see how many people come for the summit, they tend to value places that should be historic districts, such as downtown, a lot more. Trimble added that the Summit will cost the City some money, but the current City Council would be likely to approve those costs. Karr asked if the cabins and the project next door would be done by then. Bristow replied that the cabins should be done in October, but she did not know about the project next door. Trimble said she believes it has a pretty reasonable timeline. Karr said he was particularly interested in when the actual church would be done. Bristow said she did not know about the church renovations except that the elevator/stair entrance addition will certainly be done by then. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 10, 2018 Page 10 of 11 Builta asked about the process of applying for the CLG. Bristow said there is a lot of information in the grant that is formulaic. She said that SHPO assists in the writing of the grant application. Builta asked if the Commission would want to apply for the grant before doing anything else. Bristow responded that the grant is required. She said it is something where SHPO decides who will get the grant and then the grant is accepted to help underwrite the costs for the Summit 2 years later. Bristow said that the Summit has usually been held in June and July with one held in September. She said that it is her understanding that generally the State selects the speakers and what the sessions will be, and the City plays host. Trimble suggested that Friends of Historic Preservation could hold its Parade of Historic Homes on that Sunday. She said that for the Davenport summit, that brought several extra hundred people to the tour of homes. The consensus of the Commission was to apply to host the Preservation Summit in 2020. Grant Committee - for Review of Quotes Received for CLG Grant Projects. Bristow stated that the City received three CLG grants and has put out a request for quotes for one and will be putting out requests for the other two shortly. She said she is hoping to have multiple respondents. Bristow said she would like to have a small subcommittee of the Commission to read the quotes and compare them against what the projects are asking for and to help choose who the consultants will be. Bristow said this will likely be local consultants so that she thought it should be a group decision. Swaim said that it will probably involve about an hour's worth of reading material and then a meeting of under an hour. Bristow said the grants involve: an intensive survey of the property at 2040 Waterfront Drive, known as Friendly Farm; taking the larger National Register nomination for the Clinton Street and Railroad District and writing a National Register Nomination with the smaller district; and the assessment and display design of the Summit Street Monument. Clore, DeGraw, and Boyd volunteered to serve on the subcommittee ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O U O U Z O fY W U W a U O H U 2 a 0 X X x X X X X X X X X N N X X X x x x X X X X x a M X X X X w X X X X X x N X x X w X X X X x x X X X X X X X X X X 0 0 ax w w w x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x w x N c X X X X X X X 0 x x x v X x x x X x x X X O x x x x o x x o o x x w w w w CV) x x x x x x x O O O O X X x x x x I x x X w O OD W W W CO CD CD d N N N N w W r n rn rn iz iz rn rz i n is Ow w Y. 2 Z U (n Q H U Q Q w O H > O x w a z LL = � Y �, U 0 Z z Cif F- ��� N Q w Q�Q U 0 Q m Y Q m O OO' j 3: Q m LU Y U W� �a x E wd c c � CL z° n u n n XOo� W Y