Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-12-2019 Historic Preservation Commission
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission �a ` 1 Thursday , September 12, 201 � cr , 4yc il►, 1�I11�I 1 5:30 P.M. Emma Harvat Hall City Hall Fri,; _ yc IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, September 12, 2019 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma Hai -vat 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. 10 South Gilbert Street — Local Historic Landmark (generator installation and screening) *deferred from August 8, 2019 meeting 2. 608 Ronalds Street — Brown Street Historic District (garage demolition and new construction) 3. 2460 Gilbert Street - Local Historic Landmark (rear addition conversion) 4. 1132 Burlington Street — College Hill Conservation District (rear screen porch addition) 5. 430 Ronalds Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (demolition of historic rear addition and new addition) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect —Chair and Staff review 1. 221 East Fairchild Street — Northside Historic District (window repair) 2. 930 East College Street — College Hill Conservation District (chimney repair) 3. 12 Bella Vista Place — Brown Street Historic District (porch roof membrane replacement) 4. 225 North Gilbert Street — Local Historic Landmark (roof shingle replacement) 5. 430 Brown Street — Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) 6. 104 East Jefferson Street —Jefferson Street Historic District (roof replacement) 7. 320 Fairchild Street — Northside Historic District (storm window installation for HP Fund) 8, 112 South Summit Street — College Iill Consewation District (roof repair and shingle replacement) Minor Review —Staff review 1. 210-212 Johnson Street— College Green Historic District (porch floor and stair, replacement) 2. 430 Ronalds Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (window replacement) 3. 515 North Van Buren Street — Northside Historic District (roof shingle replacement) Intermediate Review —Chair and Staff review 1. 117 N. Linn Street— EconornyAdvertising- Local Landmark (fabric awning replacement) F) Consideration of Minutes for August 8, 2019 G) Consideration of Minuets for August 19, 2019 H) Commission Information and Discussion Correspondence to Council from Jesse Allen — Re: Augusta Place I) Adjournment If you will need disabilityrelatedaccommodAnns in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jessica Bristow, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5243 or at jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org, Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Staff Report August 1, 2019 Historic Review for 10 S. Gilbert Street Classification: Local Historic Landmark The applicant, John Yapp with Augusta Place, LLC, is requesting approval for a proposed generator installation and masking project at 10 S. Gilbert Street, the former Unitarian -Universalist Church, a Local I Iistoric Landmark. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines• 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.12 Site and Landscaping Staff Comments This property, the former Unitarian -Universalist Church, was built in 1907 in the popular Tudor -Revival style and resembles a large residence rather than a church in accordance with Unitarian -Universalist beliefs. Retaining a high level of historic integrity, the property was rezoned a Local IIistoric Landmark in September 2017. The landmarked property is described as the North 110 feet Lot 4, Block 44, Original Town Iowa City. Previously, the applicant acquired approval to construct all accessible entry addition on the east end of the south side of the church where an addition wing had been removed. A small portion of the development project, Augusta Place, is located on the southern edge of the landmark property boundary. The Commission reviewed and approved cladding materials for this portion of the development as well as the design of die intervening space between development and landmark building. Working without approval, the applicant has added a generator to the landmarked property to be used for the future residential building located at 20 S. Gilbert Street, further lmown as Augusta Place. The gas line for the generator extends from Iowa Avenue, through the church building to the generator and is enclosed with a rated enclosure through the church. The applicant proposes to mask the generator with evergreen shrubs and a mural painted onto the generator box. The east and west sides of the generator would be screened by the evergreen shrubs. The mural that would be painted onto the generator would be complementary to the Church and would be done by a local muralist. As a part of both the review of the cladding for the portion of Augusta Place located within the landmark designation and for the new stair tower and elevator addition for the church, the Commission reviewed site plans for this area. At no point during the process was a generator or other equipment presented or reviewed. The generator is required as back-up power for the fire pump and elevator in Augusta Place. It is sized for that power load. A generator is not required for the Church building. The guidelines are limited in recommendations applicable to this project. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (which are attached) do not address the issue of how to incorporate large mechanical equipment, unrelated to the historic building, on a historic site. It is not considered appropriate to utilize a location on a landmark property for equipment, parking, or other elements of new construction that are not part of tie function and use of the historic, landmark property. In the research for this project, staff found that this type of equipment on a landmark property is not allowed. It jeopardizes the historic integrity of the building and site and impacts the success of current and future tax credit projects. On a site like this, which is visible from two directions, even locating the equipment behind the church impacts the historic character of the church. Routing the gas Line through the church further impacts the church and destroys historic material. The National Park Service issues specific guidance on common issues in Preservation Briefs. If the church had needed to have a change to the mechanical system or even its own generator, Preservation Brief 24, "Heating, Ventilating, and Colling Historic Building: Problems and Recommended Approaches," would have provided guidance. One page from this Brief, IIVAC Do's and Don'ts is attached here for reference. Several of the "Don'ts" are highlighted. If the Church building had needed a generator, it would be sized appropriately only for the load required and would have been verified by staff that it was not larger than required, It would have also been located so that it was not visible, likely east of the new addition. It is staff's understanding that the owner considers the entire half -block area as one property. While that may be the case for property ownership, the landmark zoning designation has a clearly defined border that is described above. It is also staff's understanding that the gas line for the generator must come from Iowa Avenue. Staff feels that if the owner felt the gas line could be located through the church, it could also be located through Augusta Place. It is also staffs understanding that the generator is required for Augusta Place, and that alternative locations, outside of the landmark exist Eor the generator to be relocated. Generators can be located on top of stair towers, in open spaces, in mechanical pits with open covers, and inside partially enclosed structure with appropriate ventilation, as well as other potential location. Preservation of any open space on the landmark property is within the purview of this Commission. Installation of equipment also requires a mechanical permit and then historic review. While it is unfortunate that this work was completed without review, the Commission should evaluate it as a proposal. Staff finds that locating the generator for Augusta Place within the landmark designated property is inappropriate and that screening will not sufficiently reduce its impact to the historic church. Additionally, the location of the gas line through the church is also inappropriate and should be removed with the walls patched carefully with the appropriate materials, making sure to prevent further damage and to reduce the visual and structural impact of this work. 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 project at 10 S. Gilbert as presented in the application. FRO Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-313. 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: wwwdcgov.org/hjatoricyreservationresources For Staff itt Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No materlal Effect rCertifi ate of Appropriateness Mior Review d Intermediate Review El 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 1,,1;1,1;,,...,,.... 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. Li Property Owner Name: Augusta Place LLC Email: Allenhomesinc lnail.cOm Phone Number: 319-530-8238 Address: 215 N Linn St, PO Box 3474 City: Iowa City State: IA Zip Code:52244 ® Contractor/Consultant Name:.Iohn Yapp Email: Jo]ui app.allenhomesp mail.com Phone Number: 319-325-1228 Address: 215 N Linn St, PO Box 3474 City: owa City State: © Zip Code: 52240 Address: Use of Pr Vr inrs Property is a local historic landmark. Date Constructed (if known): 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 Within the district, this Property is Classified as: District ❑ Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric APfdL IOATION RE4UlRENIEl11TS, 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 ❑ Repair or Restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ® Other Generator masking Please contact the Preservation Specialist at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with applications °; ARPLIC:ATION' REQUIRECvENTB Project Description: eject is to use evergreen shrubs to screen, and hire a muralist to paint the generator on the former Church property with a The generator, which serves the Augusta Place building, was placed behind the Church property as it is the only private 1sed area on the site, If the Church building has a use which requires a back-up generator, the generator can serve the building as well. Our goal is to have the generator serve as a canvas for a mural which complements the Church. ugasta Place, LLC owns the entire half -block north of City Hall. For zoning purposes, the ]calf block including the former mrch building are considered a'tract'. This was confirmed by the Senior Building Inspector. The Iowa City Zoning Code states tract shall be considered a single lot in the application of the requirements of this title." (14-9A). Materials to be Used: Evergreen shrubs will be planted to screen the generator from Gilbert Street, and from the new entrance to the Church to the east. The south side of the generator will face a new pedestrian courtyard to be constructed in between the church building and the new townhouses to the south. If the Commission concurs with the concept of painting a mural on the the generator, we would work with Jessica Bristow to design a mural complementary to the Church. Neumann Monson architects has been in touch with a local muralist about this project. Exterior Appearance Changes: generator will be screened from the east and west with evergreen shrubs. In lieu of a plain generator'box,' it is prop[ ed with a mural to complement the Church, such as a scene of what the area looked like from the era the church was hutted in 1908. Sample images of painted utility boxes are attached for reference. should be noted that the generator is located where the former office addition to the church was located, which was not insidered historic, and was approved for demolition by HPC. The City is taking ownership of the first floor parking deck. To Submit Application: Download form, Fill it out and email it to jessica-bristowBiowa-city.org or mail to Historic Preservation, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 LEI LEI a a a N H V W F- 2 _ V �_ C a E o Z 4 O 0 J N C W: D N $ 1 Z ]. Q � W s Example from Fort Collins, CO Example from Bayonne, NJ Example from Sydney, Australia --z I Example from Downey, CA a >r �t CD T'a R"►. w�. _.. X— i'L- try 1Z7 :?iLBERTST - Nclli SLR- :T i{ ] P P 93m- low rm+ 4 v "PTV I Mir_- ,iL �� _ . S VA'V iiRFty T N VAN BUREN S I °ow e3 6a, a. Q6 p Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook 10.0 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards) were originally written to determine the appropriateness of proposed project work on properties that were listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Standards are accompanied by instructions concerning methods, materials, historical character, and other considerations that relate to the historical significance of the particular property and its surroundings. The Standards have been widely accepted by state, county, and city governments. The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission uses the Standards to determine the appropriateness of exterior changes to historic landmarks and properties located in historic and conservation districts. The Iowa City Guidelines are based on and comply with the Standards, and, were written to provide more specific guidance for owners, contractors and consultants in Iowa City as well as the Historic w Preservation Commission. rt i The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (1990) are listed below. v 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 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. z 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 from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their o own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 59 Portion of Preservation Brief 24 HUAC Do's and Don'ts DO's: • Use shutters, operable windows, porches, curtains, awnings, shade trees and other historically appro- priate non -mechanical features of historic buildings to reduce the heating and cooling loads. Consider adding sensitively designed storm windows to existing historic windows. • Retain or upgrade existing mechanical systems whenever possible: for example, reuse radiator systems with new boilers, upgrade ventilation within the building, install proper thermostats or humidistats. • Improve energy efficiency of existing buildings by installing insulation in attics and basements. Add insulation and vapor barriers to exterior walls only when it can be done without further damage to the resource. • In major spaces, retain decorative elements of the historic system whenever possible. This includes switchplates, grilles and radiators. Be creative in adapting these features to work within the new or upgraded system. • Use space in existing chases, closets or shafts for new distribution systems. • Design climate control systems that are compatible with the architecture of the building: hidden sys- tem for formal spaces, more exposed systems possi- ble in industrial or secondary spaces. In formal areas, avoid standard commercial registers and use custom slot registers or other less intrusive grilles. • Size the system to work within the physical con- straints of the building. Use multi -zoned smaller units in conjunction with existing vertical shafts, such as stacked closets, or consider locating equip- ment in vaults underground, if possible. • Provide adequate ventilation to the mechanical rooms as well as to the entire building. Selectively install air intake grilles in less visible basement, attic, or rear areas. • Maintain appropriate temperature and humidity levels to meet requirements without accelerating the deterioration of the historic building materials Set up regular monitoring schedules. • Design the system for maintenance access and for future systems replacement. • For highly significant buildings, install safety moni- tors and backup features, such as double pans, moisture detectors, lined chases, and battery packs to avoid or detect leaks and other damage from system failures. • Have a regular maintenance program to extend equipment life and to ensure proper performance. • Train staff to monitor the operation of equipment and to act knowledgeably in emergencies or breakdowns. • Have an emergency plan for both the building and any curatorial collections in case of serious mal- functions or breakdowns. DON'TS: • Dort instA a new system if you don t need it. • Don't switch to a_ new type of system (e.g, forced air) unless there is sufficient space for the new sys- tem or an appropriate place to put it. • Dont over -design a new system. Don't add air con- ditioning or climate control if they are not abso- lutely necessary. • Don't cut exterior historic building walls to add through -wall heating and air conditioning units. These are visually disfiguring, they destroy historic fabric, and condensation runoff from such units can further damage historic materials. • Don't damage historic finishes, mask historic fea- tures, or alter historic spaces when installing new systems. • Don't drop ceilings or bulkheads across window openings. • Don't remove repairable historic windows or re- place them with inappropriately designed thermal windows. • Don't seal operable windows, unless part of a mu- seum where air pollutants and dust are being controlled. • Don't place condensers, solar panels, chimney stacks, vents or other equipment on visible por- tions of roofs or at significant locations on the site. • Don't overload the building structure with the weight of new equipment, particularly in the attic. • Don't place stress on historic building materials through the vibrations of the new equipment. • Don't allow condensation on windows or within walls to rot or spall adjacent historic building materials. 12 §$A bpi Rs$ — 11 �5 3Rp�p �Ri 43� a� -_—_�_ - - -_ GILBERT STREET 1 �e IW1 11,1�10®IUMIM e ° 0 z `ero yy I 8 m'sa 'M> I"o®$d O�UM4Ug ill ICI z a it Ilj'I a m �II w1 ile AIFMNp ill hill YYY pp g s $$ ggaa$sysr=eg - e9gsass 33a=$8 z o 44 T Staff Report September 4, 2019 Historic Review for 608 Ronalds Street District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, ETC Investments, LLC, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition and new construction project at 608 Ronalds Street, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The project consists of the demolition of the existing deteriorated garage and its reconstruction to match the original. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa Cityffistoriefireservation Gtudelinesfor Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.11 Siding 4.14 Wood 6.0 Guidelines for New Construction 6.2 New Outbuildings ZO Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Stafi`'Comments The lot on which this house stands was originally part of a larger lot that includes 610 Ronalds Street to the east. The house at 610 Ronalds Street was built much earlier, potentially built in 1889 and moved to its location in 1917. The garage at 608 Ronalds was built as the garage for 610 Ronalds prior to 1926. The house at 608 Ronalds was constructed .in between 1927 and 1930, after the lot was divided, as a one and a half story bungalow in the Craftsman style. Knee braces at the eaves, the mitered narrow siding, and the rectilinear window pane pattern emphasize the Craftsman style. Other stylistic attributes include a front -gable roof, exposed purlins, brick foundation, wood clapboard walls, and asphalt shingles. In 2011, staff and Chair approved a Certificate of No Material Effect for the replacement of the rear stair landing on the house. The current front stair was replaced in recent years without permit. It appears to meet the guidelines but must be painted. The applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing garage and new construction of a new garage. The attached plans include a single car garage with siding and triin that match the priinary structure. Materials to be used, pending approval of this application, are wood lap siding, asphalt shingles, and a paneled single -stall garage door. Compared to the current garage structure, the only notable exterior appearance change is that the windows on the south side of the structure ate not included in the proposed plans but the application notes that they could be added. The guidelines recommend retaining historic garages. Where it is not possible to save an existing garage, the guidelines recommend designing replacement garages to be compatible in design with the primary structure and/or other outbuildings in the neighborhood. New outbuildings should be constructed to the rear of the property and subordinate in size and ornamentation to the primary structure, but should reflect the style of the primary structure. Carriage -style garage doors may be used if they are a style appropriate for the property. Otherwise, flat panel garage doors are recommended. Windows should be relatively small and rectangular. The current garage shows the evidence of many alterations during its existence. A pair of large folding doors comprises most of the north or alley side of the structure, allowing it to open almost completely. A post of tripled studs divides the large entry in an attempt to support the roof structure along with some interior cross- bracing. The doors have been permanently closed and additional, yet still insufficient bracing has been added. The top of the wall on the north side of the garage sags dramatically. The bottoms of the large northside doors rotted away and was covered by corrugated metal roofing. The existing overhead door on the east side was added and the northside opening was permanently closed. Large sections of butt -jointed siding seem to indicate other changes to die size or openings in the structure. The original wood shingles are still visible under the existing asphalt shingles. In Staffs opinion, the garage is heavily deteriorated. While the northside has corrugated metal on the exterior, the sill plate is missing on the interior. This condition as well as deteriorated siding occurs on the west side and parts of the east and south side. The foundation wall ou the south side appears to be buckling, pulling the SF. corner apart. The passage door on the south side is also heavily deteriorated. As noted, the north wall and roof bearing sag because of deterioration and insufficient structure. While the goal of the Commission is to retain historic garages, deterioration and structural issues may provide evidence for approving demolition and reconstruction. Staff met with the applicant last August to discuss the garage. While the evidence of past changes and structural innovation was fascinating as a historical record, it was noted that the condition of the garage could be considered deteriorated beyond typical repair. For this reason, staff recommends approving demolition and reconstruction of the garage. The applicant has submitted plans for a new garage. Currently, the new garage will have the same east -facing entrance as the existing garage. While the existing garage's location is grand -fathered in, the new garage will be shifted east and south slightly. The drawings indicate that the new garage will match the siding and trim of the main house which is one of the appropriate options according to the guidelines. As with other garage reconstructions where the historic garage exists for reference, staff recommeuds that the new garage provide a better match to die existing garage than matching the house. Staff recommends the following changes to the project: • A more steeply pitched roof (such as 6/12) • Dutch lap siding rather than typical flat lap siding (only if the new garage should match the old) • Open soffits rather than soffits enclosed with aluminum • Two windows and a passage door added to the south side of the garage • Confirmation that the proposed overhead door is a smooth flat door rather than a pressed steel door similar to the existing door Since new outbuilding construction can be approved by staff when demolition is not necessary, staff recommends staff approval of updates to the new garage drawing instead of returning to the Commission to approve these changes. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 608 Ronalds Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: • Changes are made to the new garage drawing for the roof, siding, soffits and all openings as listed in the staff report and approved by staff • All door and window product information is approved by staff • � � I <i )c ' Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-36. 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/hlstoricpreservationresources 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 deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner / Applicant Information Property Owner .. . .................... ........................ .................................. _ .. _ ............... Property Owner Name ETC Investments, LLC Email * toddcase@mstWndsrealestate.com Phone * 319-936-5900 Address* Sheet Address 316 E. Court Street Address Line 2 city Iowa City Rb tal/Zip Corte 52240 Primary Contact* MYe'sGNo .................. _.............. ... _............. _... ......... _......... _.. Contractor / Consultant Name* Mike Hoogerwerf Email* mikehoogerv,erf@vvostWndsrealestate.com Phone * 319-541-7076 State / Rovince / f ion IA Country United States /420 TV Address E Street Address 316 E. Court Street Address JIs 2 Slate! Rovince I Fegion City IA Iowa City @ur1rY Postal I Zip Code United States 52240 Primary Contact* Yes G No .._..........._.____....._.. ...... _ ..........._.._...._..__._........._..........._.. .....__.....__... ....._...._.._. Proposed Project Information Address * Street Address 608 Ronalds Street Address Une2 State! Rovincal Won City IA Iowa City rbuntry Fbstal / Zip Cade United States 52240 use of Property* Investment Property Date constructed wkwwn 1/1/1933 Historic Designation Maps are located at the following link: www.iegov.drg/historicpreservationresources * 0 This property is a local historic landmark * This property is within a historic or conservation district Please select the district below:* n Brown St. Historic District G College Green Historic District O East College St. Historic District O Jefferson St. Historic District 0 Longfellow Historic District • Northside Historic District C, Summit St. Historic District (S Woodlawn Historic District 0 Clark St. Conservation District Ci College Hill Conservation District O Dearborn St. Conservation District 0 Goosetown/ Horace Mann Conservation District 0 Governor -Lucas St. Conservation District within the district, this property Is classified as: G Contributing C Noncontributing C Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials maybe rejected." C Addition C Alteration C Construction M Demolition r Repair or Restoration C Other Demolition Rolmts entadirg thaderrplillon of a pinery structure or oulbuibirg, or any pptidt of a bidldirg, such as porch, chloncy, decorative urn baluster, etc, Photographs* IMG-0475.JPG 4.74MB Evidence of deterioration* IMG-0476.JPG 3.24MB IMG-0477.JPG 2.96MB IMG-0478.JPG 3.55MB I1MG-0479.JPG 3.13MB IMG-0480.JPG 4.23106 IMG-0481.JPG 2.77MB IMG-0486.JPG 3.19MB IMG-0487.JPG 3.49MB Proposal of Future Plans 608 Ronaids - Garage Rans.pdf 233.02KB Additional Requirements Project Description: * Demo and rebuild garage on property per attached plans. Materials to be Used:* Wood lap siding, asphalt shingles, paneled single -stall garage door. Siding and trim to match primary structure. Exterior Appearance Changes:* Current plans do not replace windows on south side of current garage - plans could easily be amended to include windows. I ///,, � -_ I j t r i 7 �1 7, w _ _a_« . _ ,_ _ waa . . Sa a zmT�;�9g,k _v_SSw909F � c. /| ?S SGIVNOa 909 / \ & ) -- — - --� � � \ 6 _ ) � � ) $ § ) 4 § §e § J /\ k � . ) FIrIv k — -- -- --- — % V,, \� 4 �Bffi® F\A�Li r' ..:: Ol Yly� tl 14i�4�' /ep� r _r4\ h r r m�. rl /f v Staff Report September 6, 2019 Historic Review for 2460 South Gilbert Street Classification: Local Historic Landmark The applicants, Joel Kline and Catherine Woodman, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 2460 South Gilbert Street, a Local H storical Landmark. The project consists of converting the northeast corner of the McCollister -Showers farmstead house from a storage area to a dining/living space. In addition, on the interior, the project consists of a reopening of access from the current dining room to the proposed dining/living space. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City"istoncPreservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.5 Foundations 4.8 Masonry 4.9 Paint and Color 4.11 Siding 4.13 Windows 4,14 Wood 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Staff Comments This house was buEt in an Anglo-Italian style and is a good example of the Victorian architecture of the time. The brick house was built first in 1864 and then was added onto in 1880. In 1864, when the bottom story and a half was built, local orange -red brick and limestone were used. The McCollister's farm started to prosper in the corning years and in 1880 they decided to add onto the house. The house then became two stories high and gained a more ornate front section. Other notable attributes of the house include curved top Itahanate windows, white Victorian ornamentation, white trim, a segmental arch front door, and a gable framed roof with brackets. When the current owners bought the property in 2010 it was in a severely deteriorated condition with windows and floors missing as well as other damage suffered as a rental property. In 2005, die Commission approved die demolition of the heavily damaged barn located on the property. Its replacement with a barn -like house structure was approved in 2013. In 2007, the Commission approved alterations to an existing non -historic concrete block shed located on the property. In 2013, the Commission approved the construction of a new three car garage with attached shop. The applicants are proposing to convert a northeast storage area to a dining/living space. This area already has a roof and a partial low brick wall along one edge. In addition, the applicants will create access from the current dining room to the proposed dining/living spaces. Currently, the storage area has access from the outside only. The original house had access between the two spaces but was closed off at some point. The project will continue the low brick wall along both sides of the current shed area. The brick wall will be topped with a cap of scone or similar material. The wall above the brick will be clad in a narrow lap siding and the wall will be topped with a simple frieze board. The side of the structure will have two single windows and one window pair, all in proportions to match those on the historic portions of the house. The trim on these windows will not try to replicate the ornate lintels but will be flat trim with a simple crown. The end wall will have a par of frill-hte French Doors. WUc the project is die conversion of an existing attached, roofed, exterior shed into an enclosed space incorporated into the house, it is useful to review it as if it was an addition or expansion of the building footprint because of the extent of the project. The existing roof and roof structure will remain and not change as a part of the project. The guidelines, in Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint, recommend applying siding to a new addition that appears similar in size, shape, texture, and material to the existing siding on the historic building. The addition should use materials that appear similar to the historic siding, trim, moldings, and other details of the original building. An exception exists for rear additions in Historic Districts that could also apply to this Landmark Property. That exception states that additions to masonry structures may be sided with wood. The siding type must be consistent with the age and architectural style of the historic building. The trim must be consistent with both the siding type and the architectural style of the building. Any substitute materials must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Commission. According to section 5.1, French doors should be installed in additions where a large opening is desired. Windows should be of a similar type, proportion and divided light pattern as those in the original structure and follow the guidelines for new windows in Section 4.13 Windows. Section 4.13 states that the use of wood, or metal clad, solid wood windows is acceptable. In Staffs opinion, using a wood siding in a tight lap would be more appropriate on this house than trying to match the historic brick. Given the fact that a portion of this wall already has a sill -height brick base, the area is near a higher, vegetated slope, and the applicant wants to continue this base, staff finds it acceptable to provide a brick base with appropriate stone cap. The applicant has enough brick on site for the low wall. The historic house no longer has its original windows but retains the curved metal window hoods. Since this addition is on the back and will be clad mostly in wood instead of brick, staff recommends that the proportions of the new windows match those of the existing windows but have a flat top and simple flat trim similar to Victorian Folk Houses. Similarly, staff recommends that the fascia at the top of the wall is a more simple and narrow fascia than the elaborate Italianate crown that exists at the second story. Currently window product information needs to be submitted for an appropriate wood or metal -clad wood double hung window. Product information for the French doors has also not been submitted. The applicant would like to use smooth LP Smartside for the lap siding which staff finds acceptable. The product submitted, however, had a hard, glossy coating that did not appear to meet the guidelines requirement that it accepts paint. The applicant has submitted a request to use a Certainteed composite material for the window and door trim. The product will be shown to the Commission for approval. Staff finds that this material may be appropriate for this application because the area is very near vegetation and the location tends to remain fairly damp. Staff finds this addition an appropriate use of an existing shed space to provide additional living space to the Landmark property. Several elements should be approved by Staff or Staff and Chair prior to the issuing of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 2460 South Gilbert Street, as presented in the application with the following conditions: • The siding product is approved by staff • The windows and door product is approved by staff • The material and configuration of the stone cap is approved by staff y�,�'a jam, �rtj e 4� -_ ��� ��_ -- - :- - � Irk j � � 1�`�-- Y�"..i K :� Hppncation for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-313. 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.ic ov.or historic reservationresources For Staff Use: a/r g Date submitted; ❑ Certificate of No material 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 Name: JJoel Kline and Catherine Woodman Email:Joel-kline(@uiowa.edu Phone Number: 3196210102 Address: 2460 S Gilbert St City: Ilowa City State: IA Zip Code: 52240 ❑ Contractor/Consultant Name: Email:1 Phone Number: Address: City State:Zip Code:❑_❑ Address: 12460 S Gilbert St Iowa City, IA 52240 Use of Property: Pritnary residence Date Constructed (if known): 1864/1880 U r tus rroperty 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 Within the district, this Property is Classified as: District ❑ Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric APPLICATION ► KQUIRFMEINTS Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. porch, deck, etc.) Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ® AlteratlOri (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 ❑Photographs ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ 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 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 RE,QUIREMFENTS Project Description: renortheast corner of the McCollister -Showers farmstead is currently a storage area that is only accessible from the outside. inally there was an opening into what is now the dining room. We propose to reopen that passage and convert the storage area a dining/living space. Materials to be Used: We will be guided by the Iowa City Preservation Planner, but tentatively plan to use a board and batten exterior siding, as is used on the detached garage. Exterior Appearance Changes: We will be adding windows (facing into a wooded area, not visible frorn the street or driveway), and replacing the current shed -style door with an appropriate external door. For the exterior siding we plan to use a board -and -batten exterior siding. To Submit Application: Dowtdoad 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 z sr® FREEZE Mo Ria m sITE WITH TM rI hUNP VE C ,= 1 J YJ r. -- —� --- . r ,r. ^ iZ..,* 1 .�.. r 'Y V y.. AoA, P" Staff Report September 6, 2019 Historic Review for 1132 Burlington Street District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Brandice Armstrong, is requesting approval for a proposed screened porch and deck addition project at 1132 Burlington Street, a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. The project consists of the construction of a screened porch and deck addition on the back of the house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines• 4.0 Iowa Cftyffistorw Preservation Guidelines fotAlterations 4.1 Balustrades and IIandrails 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.10 Porches 4.14 Wood 5.0 GzudoYnesforAdditions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 5.2 Decks and Ramps Staff Comments This house is a two-story folic Victorian house with a front -facing gable, and a west -facing gable projection toward the rear. The house exhibits Neo-Classical elements in the'I'uscan porch columns and cornice returns on the gables. In the late 1950s a single -story rear addition was added. A carport was also added at an unknown date. The carport was recently converted to an enclosed garage without permit. In 2017, staff approved the replacement of a window over the carport but the owner repaired the window instead as part of an overall painting project. A new deck project on the rear of the house was begun without a permit last year and was on hold for a redesign and approval. The applicant is proposing the addition of a 13 foot by 20 foot screen porch addition to the back of the house, It will be set in one foot on each side wall from the existing 1950's addition. The screen porch roof will align with, and match the materials of, the existing addition roof. A new 5-foot-deep deck and stairs will be added to the screen porch. The deck will have handrails and balusters that meet the guidelines. The screen porch will also have a railing to meet code. It will also have closed soffits to match the house. Section 5.2 Decks and Ramps of the guidelines recommend locating them on the back of the house and setting them in from the sidcwalls of the existing house. Decks should also follow the guidelines in Section 4.1 Handrails. If a screened porch structure is being created, it should follow the guidelines for porches in section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint. This section recommends construction new porches that are consistent with the historic building or similar to porches of the same architectural style, New porches that are more than 18 inches above grade should use typical porch construction including wood joists and wood flooring. Skirt ng should be added to fill the space between the porch floor and grade if the space is 24 inches or greater. The skirting should be constructed between die porch piers. Generally, with additions, it is recommended that roof pitches, overhangs, and soffits are consistent with the existing building. Exceptions exist for rear additions in Conservation Districts that would allow porches on rear elevations to not reproduce historic details and to use pretreated porch decking or dimensional lumber for the flooring provided the gaps between floorboards do not exceed 1/8 inch. In Staffs opinion, this addition is appropriately located on rear of the house with the appropriate side setback, roof line and soffit detail. The property is eligible for the exception to allow decking in the screen porch floor. The drawing indicates that the screen will be constructed of simple wood framing which would be appropriate. The drawings also indicate that the porch will terminate in a gable roof. If this is the case, a frieze board should be installed along the top of the screened wall so that the porch roof appears to be carried on a beam. Another option would be to terminate the roof with a hip so that no lap siding is needed. A minimal frieze board should terminate the top of the screened wall under the soffit instead of being completely hidden within the roof structure. If Staffs opinion, in order to follow the porch guidelines, the structural bearing under the corners of the screened porch should be delineated by posts or piers. The area between piers should be enclosed with skirting. This site drops off dramatically from the house and staff does not feel it necessary to use masonry piers for this application because of their potential height. Staff also does not feel that h is appropriate to extend the skirting under the open deck section because of the large expanse of skirting this creates. As noted, the railing of the deck will also need to be installed in the screen porch in order to meet code. The porch put of the project would be painted to blend with the house and the deck portion painted or stained. With the appropriate revisions, staff recommends approval of this project. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1132 East Burlington Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: • Porch posts define the structural bearing under the screen porch portion • Skirting is installed under the screen porch portion • The eave detail includes a frieze board along the top of the wall with a larger wider exposed portion mim ckcing a beam on any open gable end. 1 g Y 4 tt,9 ::"'"A�� •ems, .,�. �_ x ..x .. r' c f- %'YVI� 3 4� t4 1 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 14-313. 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.ic gov.org /his toxic preservatiot-iresources For Staff Use: Date submitted; ❑ Certificate of No material 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: Phone Number: State: _ _ : { Zip Code: Contractor/Consultant Name: I -, � e Jt-, _`�it, 1 Email: Phone City: I State: Zip Coder PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION Address: Use of PropertyJ Date Constructed (if known): 0 HISTORIC DESIGNATION (Maps are located at the following link: wcvw.icgov.orgZhis toric :)reseivationresuurces) 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 Rr 'College Historic District ❑ Summit St. Historic District ❑ East College St. Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Jefferson St. Historic District ❑ Clark St. Conservation ❑ Longfellow Historic District District Within the district, this Property is Classified as ❑ Dearborn St. Conservation District ❑ Goosetown/ Horace Mann Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas St. Conservation District ❑ Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric (�D 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 El Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information R`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 trainer alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Product Information ❑ Photographs El 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 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 Prnior+ Flaarrin+inn' Materials to be Used: ,Af l^�n f�+�F�.A F,ipt �..�/�ri l•},..w. _. Exterior Appearance Changes: e(..4'..: 'pit ]'C,P�• p`,pJ ��-!".''3 r C,. �C_ �'v �; •" ` • f itj 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 1� 4� X AY 0. � O O Q V Sl r QQQ- W" ` t � y _ 1. SaF �,rp'�rLi. R. ?q� 4; yrHH "✓`+.�; 6 ds \Y L f r Via' x {, •� � l ., �,' ..y� Ps� R lY.�r�,P ■♦ Staff Report September 6, 2019 Historic Review for 430 Ronalds Street District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Evangeline Kadera, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition and new addition project at 430 Ronalds Street, a contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists of the demolition of an attached historic shed and reconstruction of a new shed with some repurposed materials and a larger footprint. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.5 Foundations 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.9 paint and Color 4.11 Siding 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood 9..0 Guidelines forAdaitions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Staff Comments This house was constructed in the mid-1890s as a T-shaped Queen Anne. Originally, this house had a wraparound front porch that has since been removed. The house has been a rental property until purchased by the current owners who have been transforming it into a single-family owner -occupied house. The applicant is proposing to rear down an existing, historic, attached shed and rebuild a new shed. The applicant has stated that many of the materials used to reconstruct the shed will be repurposed. The project would have the north wall of the shed extend an additional five feet from its current location. Other noticeable exterior changes, beyond the construction of a new structure, is an additional roof overhang would be added to the west and windows would be relocated to the east and west sides. The guidelines state that a Certificate of Appropriateness is required for the removal of any portion of a building. Typically, the Comm ssion will consider the condition, integrity and architectural significance of structure. In Section 5.1, Expansion of the Building Footprint, the guidelines recommend that new additions preserve historic materials and do not diminish the character of the historic structure. The new addition should be distinguished from the existing building by offsetting the walls of the addition from the walls of the original structure. Key horizontal lines should be matched and the palette of materials should be similar to the historic structure. Siding, windows, trim, foundation, and roof should all match die existing. The guidelines also recommend preserving significant historic materials and features of the original structure such as decorative windows and trim. Building additions should be placed at the rear of a property. In Staff's opinion, this single -story shed -roof addition is historic (built prior to 1933) but is in poor condition, has been altered over time, and is not large enough to provide the workshop space the applicant needs to complete the rehabilitation of the home. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the demolition of this shed and the construction of a new shed addition. Currently, the new addition is shown with a single window and door on the east and west sides of the addition and a blank wall to the north. Staff recommends that two or more windows are installed on the north side to provide a more appropriate window pattern to that wall. Staff also recommends changing the door size of the east or street -facing door to a typical size found on the exterior of the house, allowing the larger door to remain on the west Bice which is not visihle from the street. Matching the lap siding, frieze board and open soffits found on the existing shed addition would also be appropriate. Staff also finds the use of reclaimed materials appropriate for this project. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 430 Ronalds Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: • At least two windows arc included in the north wall of the addition • The east -facing door is changed to match other standard -sized historic exterior doors on the house k a i.. 44, .^ K y Apy r 1'. 1\ F wy ..,w, Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-313. 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.icpov.ori.,/historict)reservationresources For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness Major Review ❑ Intermediate Review El 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 Name: lEvangeline Kadera Email:FEv—.kadera@gmail.com Phone Number: 319-351-1368 Address: 1430 Ronalds St City: Ilowa City State: IA Zip Code: 52245 ❑ 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 W APPLIC,�,TION REQUIREMENTS i 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, skylighCs, window opening alterations, decl< or porch replacement/construe Lion, 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 anew 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 ❑ Repair or Restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other Please contact One Preservation Specialist at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with applications Project Description: rstruction of attached shed built in 1900. Rebuilding north wall out an additional 5' from current location. Will repurpose of the original materials including siding, and windows. Materials to be Used: Original and new Exterior Appearance Changes: foot expansion to the north and additional roof overhang to the west, Windows relocated to east and west sides. To Submit Application: Download form, Fill it out and email it to jessica-bristow4iowa-city.org or mail to Historic Preservation, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 EJ� v Q Z l- w � Z m 4� C 17 d N W FA b'iz —� —r wlNoow OooV- _ _ T _ i • 2t4 Qo�2iL . 2.11, vOv61.v-..lt4hb µg AOLA � I LL Z Nr d b - - Q ma \ Z t? z ti 0 V 2 _ i� A _ _ J a V I 1 G 87 oy31+3"H^ao aN� od - z£ r -zhd) S ,a I I I i' l F i I I" Ya. w •;r 1 .. N' j . s • ♦T•I' Y M. f _ t •S ... t� f Ll p August 30, 2019 Mayor Throgmorton, City of Iowa City Members of City Council 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor and City Council: As the Augusta Place project is nearing completion, I wanted to extend a huge Thank You to City Councils past and present, the City Manager, Planning and Zoning and Historic Preservation Commissions, and numerous City Staff. The Augusta Place project started in 2015 when the Unitarian Society of Iowa City announced their congregation was moving to a new facility in Coralville. At that time, I saw an opportunity, shared by the City, to preserve the Church and develop the surface parking lot north of City Hall into residences within walking distance of downtown and campus. The project was not without controversy, but I believe that through cooperation we achieved the goals that were discussed in 2015, including preservation of the Unitarian Church building, using the Church as a winter shelter during the 2016-17 winter, adding street life and tax base to a once -surface parking lot, providing the City with sheltered parking on the first level of a two -level parking structure, incorporating affordable housing units into new construction, and beautifying the 400 block of Iowa Ave and the 10 block of Van Buren St. There are too many City staff that have been involved to mention specifically, but we appreciate all the work done by the Development Services, Engineering, Forestry, Police, Finance, Legal, and Economic Development Departments, and of course the City Manager's Office. Augusta Place is named after Augusta Chapin, the first female minister of in Iowa City, and the first woman in the Country to have earned a Doctorate of Divinity. We hope that the `Augusta' Place name and the preservation of the Church building will help this history live on. Once again, Thank You for the spirit of cooperation that helped bring this project from an idea - to reality, Sincerely, ry rri esse Allen, Augusta Place LLC .r' rT1 x Ln MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL August 8, 2019 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Lyndi Kiple, Cecile Kuenzli, G. T. Karr, Quentin Pitzen, Jordan Sellergren MEMBERS ABSENT: Gosia Clore STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Ginalie Swaim, John Christenson, Maeve Clark RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 513 Grant Street— Longfellow Historic District (second floor rear addition). Bristow explained 513 Grant Street is a four -square, contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. It has a rock -faced stone foundation and piers. It has narrow lap siding, corner boards, and double -hung windows — a few of them paired. The house does have an intrusive addition built in the 1970s off the rear. The applicant is currently planning to add to a second -floor addition for a bedroom, bathroom, and closet. Staff worked with the applicant first to see if it was possible to have the second -floor addition fit the guidelines- set in from the corners of the house to preserve that corner, matching the siding, having the roof connect in either a flat roof, like a lot of the four -square sleeping porches are when they are on the second floor, or maybe match the hip roof on the house. One option would have been to have the new addition smaller than the footprint on the current addition. Structurally, that was not going to be possible. So following the existing footprint was most appropriate. The current proposal will revise the existing addition so that it is more appropriate for the house and then add the new second floor. Bristow noted there is an issue with the roofline that is not yet resolved following this approach. She said part of the reason the guidelines recommend additions are set in from the sides is to prevent an awkward condition with the roof connections. Staff has requested either more detailed drawings or a basic 3D model to illustrate how the rooflines will be resolved. The current recommendation from staff is to have the window and door product information approved by staff, or staff and chair after the fact, and also have staff and chair approve the roof condition. Bristow shared a view from the south side, showing how the addition protrudes two to three feet past the side of the house. The radon pipe will be removed. She showed the addition from the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 2 of 11 back corner. It has inappropriate siding and a flat roof with a small eave overhang. The windows are also incorrectly proportioned and ganged. The north side of the current addition has no windows. Kuenzli asked if there had been consideration of removing the bottom addition, and rebuilding it set in so it would meet the guidelines. Bristow said it was beyond the scope of the project because it is so fully integrated into the house right now. Bristow shared the proposed plan showing the footprint of the addition.On the second floor, the north side would have one window in it. There would be two full windows on the back and two windows on the south side. Bristow said the two ganged windows in the addition now on the first floor would be replaced with two windows that match the others in the house, with the second - floor windows aligned above them. Bristow described the west side, the area of the addition on the back side. Currently it has a pair of windows. The applicant would like to put in a pair of French doors to let more light in on the west side and to provide direct access to the back yard. There would be one, slightly smaller proportioned window in the bathroom above the French doors. Bristow said because of the interior they only propose to add one window to the north side. Staff finds that acceptable, partly because this part of the addition is recessed so far from the side walls of the house. It is also difficult to see from any direction, and is not visible from the sidewalk or the street at all. Bristow said an original porch was enclosed on the back of the house long ago and has a wide eave and a flat roof condition that could be mimicked in a flat roof on the addition. The other option is a hip roof. The slope of the existing roof and the head of the windows on the second floor in the original house make it difficult to tie in the roofs. This situation in combination with the addition extending past the south wall of the house make the roof condition difficult to resolve. For both floors of the rear addition, all siding and trim conditions would matched the historic house. At least one upper floor window from the house could be reused in the addition. The new windows would be five -over -one double hung windows to match the existing. Boyd explained that now was the time for clarifying questions before opening the public hearing. After the hearing closes, the Commission will have further discussion. Pitzen wondered if this were to be a flat roof with a side exposed, if there were any guidelines for how the roof edge would be treated. Bristow said they would have fascia or some kind of board on any side that did not have a gutter, so we would at least have some kind of a roof edge that had a flat edge. She said the house has open soffits, but it has the gutter, so it would be a matter of combining the roof edge condition. Bristow said a model would allow them to work out the details. Agran thought, if the project timeline allowed, it would be better reviewed once all the roof details had been worked out. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 3 of 11 Boyd opened and closed the public hearing with no comments. Karr did not believe the project could be reviewed without knowing how the roofline would look. Kuenzli agreed. Pitzen thought a hip roof would look more appropriate. Bristow said the goal had been to reflect a two-story addition with a sleeping porch, which tends to have a flat roof, but noted that might not be the best choice for this house. She said staff has pushed for the idea of having a model or more detailed drawings because the roof tie-in cannot be determined enough from the drawings to approve it. MOTION: Agran moved to defer the decision for the Certificate of Appropriateness for 513 Grant Street to either the August 19th meeting or the following formal meeting, contingent upon seeing specific information about the roofline of the proposed addition and how it ties into the structure, either in the form of more detailed drawings or a model. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 718 East Washington Street — College Hill Conservation District (window replacement for egress). Bristow explained 718 East Washington Street is a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. It is a bungalow and was owner -occupied for decades. Bristow noted the part of the application suggesting replacement of the five dormer attic windows had been withdrawn. They now propose to repair them and apply a storm window, as they will be doing with all first -floor windows. The attic was originally an unfinished walk-up. The applicant is adding two bedrooms in the attic — one on each side. They propose to change the second floor east and west windows to egress windows. Each will be a casement window that has muntin bars, so it looks like a double -hung window. The product information they submitted was a Brighton casement window, three -over - one appearance, meeting egress requirements. The guidelines talk about the ability to change a window like this if it's needed by code for a bedroom, which in this case it is. As they are also on the side of the house, Staff finds that appropriate and applauds the owners for repairing the original windows that remain in the house otherwise. Boyd opened and closed the public hearing with no comments. Pitzen asked if there were guidelines for matching muntins on storm windows. Bristow said storm windows and storm doors are not regulated but, if someone were to ask, generally we just like a storm window to be divided into two panes like a traditional storm window. They are not required to match other divided light conditions. MOTION: Karr moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the egress window portion of the project at 718 East Washington Street as presented in the amended application. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 4 of 11 10 South Gilbert Street — Local Landmark (generator installation and screening). Bristow announced that the applicant had requested to defer this discussion. The owner was not able to attend this evening. Since the Staff report did not recommend approval, she said they also wanted to investigate their options. Staff felt the request for deferral until the September 12th meeting was acceptable. Agran saw no reason to defer discussion of this project. Bristow said the applicant was aware the Commission would have to vote to do that. Agran said since their options do not include this site, there was no reason to have it deferred. Boyd stated the Commission would be receptive to a request from a property owner for a specific meeting if noted when submitting their application. DeGraw wanted to know if a motion was made to affirm or deny, would it limit their progress in any way when they come up with an alternative solution. Bristow said it depended what the Commission decides. If the Commission decided the equipment should not be on this site and needed to be removed, then an alternative proposal from the applicant would not need to be heard by the Commission. If the Commission determines the site is okay, but the situation needs to change, that would require an alternative submittal that could be heard again by the Commission. If it's the same site that had already been denied, then the Commission would not hear it again. Kuenzli thought for the sake of clarity the Commission should go ahead and render an opinion so the applicants would know what they must come back with and what they cannot come back with. Boyd made a counter argument to honor the deferment for the sake of being cooperative partners. He said in their motion they could note their intent to vote at the September meeting whether a representative was present or not. If deferred, DeGraw wanted to note issues with the project as is. Pitzen asked if any entity of the City had approved the applicants' request. Bristow said no, the approved site plans did not include a generator anywhere on the project at all. Sellergren asked if the problem was a noise complaint or simply esthetic. Bristow said the problem is that the equipment is for a different building installed on a landmark property. MOTION: Agran moved to defer the decision on the Certificate of Appropriateness for 10 South Gilbert Street to the September meeting to provide the applicant time to further investigate options and to attend that meeting, where a decision will be made regardless of the attendance of the applicant. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 5 of 11 REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review. 714 Ronalds Street — Brown Street Historic District (porch repair). Bristow stated the porch would be repaired to match what was there. There was some rotting likely caused by too much plant material too close to the building. 528 East College Street— College Green Historic District (porch repair). This porch is being repaired. 507 North Linn Street— Northside Historic District (siding and soffit repair). 507 North Linn Street was once a Queen Anne. It has had two additions and is a rental property. The porch has been removed. Bristow said right now they are patching the siding. Some of it needs painted and some of the soffit needs repaired. She said the plan is that someday the historic house will all have narrow lap siding and the modern part will have modern, wider lap siding. 613 Ronalds Street— Brown Street Historic District (metal roof replacement). Bristow said the metal roof will be replaced with a new standing seam metal roof with flat panel in between. Minor Review— Staff Review. 309 Fairchild Street— Northside Historic District (porch stair and site stair replacement). Bristow said both sets of stairs would be replaced as they are, with concrete. She did tell the applicants that since they have a wooden porch, the more appropriate material would be wood stairs. The project was approved with that as an option. 809 Bloomington Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch floor and stair replacement). There was some rot in the porch floor and some of the railing that will be replaced. Bristow said this is not original. 424 East Jefferson Street — Jefferson Street Historic District (porch step and site railing replacement). The porch stair railing and the site stair railing would be replaced with a simple metal railing. 502 Grant Street— Longfellow Historic District (rear step replacement). The concrete stairs in the back will be replaced with wood. She said there was a simple railing around the side porch roof that will be matched. The stairs will descend in two directions. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 6 of 11 603 East College Street— College Green Historic District (porch railing and skirting replacement). The front side porch railing will be replaced with a standard spindle railing. The project included enlarging the corner pier and adding some skirting. 821 North Johnson Street— Brown Street Historic District (metal railing replacement). Bristow explained this was a project that came through the Commission. They originally intended to retain the existing metal railing. This house is mid-century modern with a black wrought iron railing. The stairs had to change slightly to meet current code, so they must put in a new railing. Bristow said they talked about matching exactly what they had. It was just not going to work out, so they are going to install a simple black aluminum railing with spindles and posts to be as unobtrusive as possible. 318 Church Street— Northside Historic District (rear sliding door changed to French door). Bristow said this house had work on the front porch last year and had an inappropriate addition in back. The sliding door will be replaced with a pair of French doors. Intermediate Review— Chair and Staff Review. 829 Kirkwood Avenue — Local Landmark (porch repair and roof shingle replacement). The applicant will be replacing some of the porch trim and materials around the floor and stairs that have rotted out. She said staff worked with them on the roof replacement project. Currently it has original wood shingles. In the past, under a different owner, this house had been lifted off its foundation for a long period. Animals had been getting into the roof during that time. Ever since, the new owners have not been able to keep the animals out. Currently they eat through the roof shingles. The owners patch the roof and the animals eat through it again. Staff approved asphalt shingles for this roof to prevent animals from getting in. 423 Ronalds Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (fence installation). 423 Ronalds Street is the result of another project. Bristow said the neighbor has a Commission -approved a driveway going in behind the house. That driveway points at the applicants back deck and porch so they are now putting in a privacy fence in the backyard. Bristow explained the taller fence portion will step down and become much shorter in between the two houses. The main purpose of the tall part is to block car headlights pointing at them. 220 and 226 South Johnson Street— College Green Historic District (retaining wall replacement). 220 and 226 South Johnson Street are under the same ownership. Bristow said it has a concrete retaining wall, but it is falling in so they will be replacing it. She said they will be using landscape block. This was the second Willowwind School. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 13, 2019 MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's June 13, 2019 meeting. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 7 of 11 COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Commissioner Retirement. Bristow announced that Lee Shoppe had retired. He was moving, so he would not be able to represent the Woodlawn District anymore. His last meeting would have been July. She said she and Boyd thanked him for his service. We hope he continues well in his new location. Boyd pointed out current vacancies in Woodlawn and East College Street. Bristow said if any Commissioners know anyone who lives on Woodlawn or in the East College Historic District, please talk to them about becoming a commissioner. We would love to have them. Election of Officers. Boyd said the election is supposed to take place annually after the new Commission is appointed. All Commission terms are three years staggered and Zach, who was our Vice Chair, is no longer on the Commission, so we need a Chair and a Vice Chair. Boyd said he was happy to continue as the Chair, but if someone else wanted it, he would not object. Kuenzli moved that Kevin Boyd continue serving as Chair. DeGraw seconded the motion. There were no other nominations for Chair. Boyd said he had filled a partial term, and this was the final year of his first full term, so others should start thinking about serving as Chair. Bristow noted if they receive applicants for the at -large positions, Council wants to turn the positions over, so is may be difficult for the at -large positions to get a second term. Bristow explained the State really likes it if the Vice -Chair is being prepared to become the next Chair. Kuenzli nominated Tom Agran as Vice -Chair. Pitzen seconded the motion. Agran said he was not currently planning on renewing his term, but he would be happy to serve until next June. MOTION: Boyd moved to continue serving as Chair, with Agran serving as Vice -Chair. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Annual Awards Ceremony. Bristow explained the need to revamp how are awards are done because it currently takes too much Staff time. Bristow said she did talk to Stefanie Bowers, who staffs the Human Rights Commission about their awards program. They have both the adult awards and the youth awards. She said there were several things that came up that could potentially be done by this Commission. Some things, if they involve changes to budgets, would take more time. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 8 of 11 Bristow noted there were at least three people in attendance from the Friends of Historic Preservation, one of our co-sponsors, as well as a representative from the County Commission. The County Chair had emailed that they think continuing to hold the awards is important and one of the only ways we have visibility within the community. They do want to be involved and Staff suggests getting them more involved. Ginalie Swaim, current President of the board of Friends of Historic Preservation, introduced Dan Matheson and Maeve Clark, also on the board. Swaim also noted Friends had co -sponsored the awards for years and years. She said that last year, and perhaps the year before that, Friends did not carry its load for various reasons. They are now in a better position to carry their load again and hoped to do more. Friends recognize the value of the awards to the community, to the property owners, to the contractors, and to the local preservation movement. It is a well-done event. It has high standards. It's a very educational event. It is a very feel -good event. From her past time on the Commission, Swaim also recognized the awards are a lot of work. She thanked Bristow for her work and said if things cannot continue the way we may like, Friends is ready to help rethink and redo the awards in any way they can with volunteer energy. John Christenson spoke. He has been a member of the Johnson County Historic Commission for 13 years. He compared the historic commission from his previous home in St. Peter, MN with the Iowa City Commission. He said St. Peter did not have the same strength and power found in Iowa City. He noted the Johnson County Historic Commission has no working budget, no staff members, and they do not have the authority to approve or deny changes made to properties. Christenson said one of the high points every year was cooperating with the Iowa City HPC to have the awards recognition. He thought it was tremendous to have all these people — contractors, architects, just ordinary people interested in preservation — brought together. Christenson said they want the awards to continue, even though they cannot contribute any money. He said they want to be involved. He believed it was an important public relations device. He said they do come up with some interesting historic sites within Johnson County to be recognized. Boyd asked Bristow what tasks could be shifted from City Staff to the combined historic committee. Bristow said Staff has been thinking about this - how to change it and make it better or more efficient. She said currently there are several major draws on Staff time. One is coming up with the nominees. One of the things that we used to do is look back through all the projects that we've reviewed over the past few years — a few years because maybe it took them that long to get finished, and the projects need to be complete before they are given an award. She said they also would just drive around town. We don't want to restrict the awards just to regulated historic properties. We really like it when we can find those properties that are outside of our historic districts and recognized landmarks. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 9 of 11 Bristow said any projects that make it before the nomination committee should be reviewed by Staff. She thought the Commission and other groups could assist in acquiring an overall list of potential nominees and property photographs. Compiling the nominees and getting them ready for the nominating committee takes a considerable amount of time. Beyond that, the biggest time crunch is compiling information on the award winners. Some of that also must be done by Staff because we need to have a letter about an award come from the City. Bristow said in the past we have had the Committee help write the script, but Staff must edit it. Staff doesn't feel that taking the script writing away from the Committee is a good thing, but we do know with the other Commissions, staff completely write the script. Bristow said we could consider not only having a keynote speaker, which we have had in the past, but potentially having some educational moment. Bristow said the Human Rights Commission has never had to pay any speaker, but sometimes they are known people that help them sell tickets, because theirs is a paid event. Bristow said we could potentially have fewer awards. She suggested some light categories, like painting, could have the number of awards reduced. Typically we have many awards, generally 18-19. Attendees numbered around 75 last year, 100 the year prior. She said many of the winners were not the award presentation attendees, so even if there were fewer winners, she thought they could still bring in a crowd. She believed we could also err on the side of too few awards. People like to hear about the buildings, but they also like to hear about the stories in town. Having a speaker that was more entertaining might be a good thing, too. Kuenzli agreed with everything that everyone said about the importance and significance of the awards. She noted it helps create civic pride. It encourages people. It motivates people. It can be inspirational. Kuenzli said she was willing to help in any way she could to keep it going. She thought fewer awards might be a good idea and maybe people would come if it didn't go on so long. Bristow noted they try to limit the awards to one hour. DeGraw suggested four commissioners volunteer to each take on four properties to research, gather information, take photos and then meet back together on a deadline. These would be properties designated as awardees. She said a larger pool of volunteers could help come up with the nominees. Bristow suggested commissioners take stock of their own districts for nominees. Burford asked if there was a contractor list or list of building permits that could be reviewed. Bristow said contractor lists for historic preservation exist. They could be contacted for potential nominees. She advised against sending a blanket email to all general contractors. Maeve Clark spoke. She is on the Friends of Historic Preservation Board, but also works at the Iowa City Public Library. She suggested holding the awards in May, during Weber Days, when the City celebrates local history and preservation. She thought maybe the Library could help find a speaker and include the awards in the promotion they already put out. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Boyd was in favor of tying the awards in with Weber Days and preservation month. He said it would create some great synergy and allow for cross -promotion and bringing greater awareness on both ends of things. Clark noted in the past, they typically displayed the before -and -after pictures of the awardee projects at the Library. She said the pictures catch a tremendous amount of attention. Kuenzli thought people would be more likely to come out in May than in January. Boyd suggested a couple HPC Commissioners and representatives of the other organizations get together to map out a work plan around a May awards date. Then people would be needed to go look for sites and take photos, and someone to draft an email to the contractor list or past award winners. Swaim said that after the last awards in January the Mayor met with her, Agran, and Boyd. She said he thinks the awards are a wonderful thing, but he hoped more opportunities could be found to have more stories and less description of architectural features. After today's discussion, she thought if there were fewer awards, they could maybe have something more of human interest to draw more people in. Boyd believed some of the new landmarks would lend themselves to stories tying buildings and humans together and how they are part of our shared history as a community and as a City. Bristow asked for a list of Commissioners who would be involved with the initial work plan. Boyd named DeGraw, Burford, Kuenzli and himself. Agran wanted to make sure the short-term goal was organization and distribution of tasks, not reinvention of a well -attended event that would cause more work for the upcoming year's award ceremony. Boyd agreed. Boyd and Bristow mentioned research that had already been completed on some projects that could be used to obtain stories for the event. Boyd stated there was consensus to move the next award ceremony to May 2020. He said ideally, a work plan would be ready for the September meeting listing who needs to do what. Bristow encouraged attendees to watch for projects when they are out and about. When they see somebody working on something, write down the address and take a quick photo. Then come back later to check the progress and take more photos. Bristow reminded Commissioners of a special meeting at 6 p.m. on Monday, August 19th. The next regular meeting is scheduled for September 12th. ADJOURNMENT: Agran moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Kuenzli. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 11 of 11 :161C.1:7[do w:7:-]:I; —11107.[K.]►•I►•a6Y.9[.]• ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-2019 TERM 9/13 10/1 11/0 12/1 1/10 2/14 3/14 4/11 5/09 5/23 6/13 8/08 NAME EXP. 1 8 3 AGRAN, 6/30/20 X O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E O/E X X X THOMAS BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/20 X X O/E X X X X X X OE X X BUILTA, ZACH 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X X X -- BURFORD, 6/30/21 X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X HELEN CLORE, 6/30/20 X O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X OE OE GOSIA DEGRAW, 6/30/19 X X X X X O/E X X X X OE X SHARON KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X KUENZLI, 6/30/19 X X X X X O/E X X X X OE X CECILE KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X , 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X X X X X QUENTIENTIN SELLERGREN, 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X JORDAN SHOPE, LEE 6/30/21 O/E X O/E X O/E X X X X X OE -- MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL August 19, 2019 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Gosia Clore, Lyndi Kiple, Cecile Kuenzli, G. T. Karr, Quentin Pitzen, and Jordan Sellergren. Thomas Agran, Helen Burford, and Sharon DeGraw arrived late MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Brianna Wills, Mike Oliveira RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 26 East Market Street (Old Brick) — Local Historic Landmark (new monument sign). Bristow noted that Old Brick is located on the corner of Clinton and Market Street and was fundamental to beginning of the preservation movement in Iowa City. She said numerous projects have been approved by the Commission for this property. The current project is signage for the church. She shared a view showing their current signage on top of the hill. Part of the project involves installing a retaining wall because of some drainage issues. The retaining wall is not tall enough to require either a building permit or approval by the Commission, so it is not being reviewed, though Staff would like to comment that putting in a limestone retaining wall like this would be considered appropriate for this structure. Bristow shared an image of the proposed retaining wall and sign. The sign would be set below the church. There is a hedge on the top of the hill and retaining wall to give a little privacy to a patio they will be installing on the top side of the retaining wall. The sign is set in a little bit from the corner at the base of the retaining wall so there can be some landscaping around. The sign will use a harder variety of limestone than the retaining wall since it will be engraved. Agran and Burford joined the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Bristow said the subject of the sign will be the Old Brick name and a "B" logo that they use on their website. Another view showed the proposed sign set back a little bit from the corner. Bristow said it was not going to be installed on the surface of the retaining wall. It will be installed in front of the retaining wall. Bristow shared the detail of the logo, the name, and the date that will be on the sign. She noted the Commission does review signage. It comes up more often on landmarked properties because most residential properties in districts don't have signage. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 19, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Bristow explained there are signage guidelines for the downtown area, but they tend to relate to either projecting signs or signs in a sign band on a commercial building. She included Preservation Brief 25, regarding new signs, for review. These briefs are put out by the National Park Service. The Brief talked about signs working with a building, rather than against it, often featuring details of the building as a motif for the sign. The sign should not obscure significant features and the material should be compatible with those of the historic building. Bristow said given the fact that the sign is set at the bottom of the hill, in front of the retaining wall, and is constructed of limestone, which would be appropriate with a church like this, Staff finds the sign appropriate and does recommend approval. She said the only other material that would be appropriate would be brick. Boyd asked if there were any clarifying questions, then opened the public hearing Brianna Wills, Executive Director of Old Brick, came to answer questions. She noted the sign is a small part of a very large project they are hoping to start next week. It started with some water issues they were having with the foundation. She said it is an almost $200,000 project. She noted they went through many design iterations and ultimately went with the limestone look because the front stairs of Old Brick are limestone. They did not go with brick because aged red brick is very difficult to match. She said they would use Anamosa limestone, a natural Iowa product. Kuenzli noted the function of a sign is to convey some information about what the building is or what its function is. In the case of Old Brick, she thought that was important since it was originally a religious structure. Kuenzli believed the proposed sign was hard to read and did not convey enough information about its multiple uses. She thought people would assume it was a church. Wills agreed they were going with a simpler sign. As a marketing piece, she said they are hoping the new sign will pique enough interest and curiosity in people passing by to take out their smartphones and search for Old Brick. That action will get them to their website and social media, where they can explore the history of Old Brick and learn how it is used. Burford thought the date on the sign was barely legible. Wills said the 1856 date would be engraved in dark print and noted that this would be a lighted sign. Agran said they could have a lively and valid critique about the branding of Old Brick, but for the scope of this conversation the actual content of the sign is not something that is within the Commission's purview, just the architecture of the sign. He did not see a problem with the structure, or the materials used, and said he would be voting in favor of the project. Sellergran asked how they decided upon the font. Wills said it was part of the logo that had been adopted by their board. Bristow said Staff also wondered where the design came from. They went to Old Brick's website and found it was their logo. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 19, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Mike Oliveira said he drives by Old Brick all the time and still didn't really know what it was. He asked how its purpose would be described. Wills said it functions as a community center and a nonprofit incubator. She said it currently houses 16 nonprofits. Kiple noted she is a student and uses her smartphone all the time. She said everything she knows about Old Brick came from the marquee sign that was there. She said every day when she would walk by, she would learn something new from the sign, such as when it was built, what it has been used for, and how it is used now. Boyd closed the public hearing. Kiple believed the proposed sign conveys that it is a community building and it is inviting. Boyd said he agreed with Agran, that the Commission is not really looking at what the sign says, but rather just making sure the sign fits the character. He said if this is their logo and that's what they want to do, he was fine with it. Karr agreed. While not something the Commission would vote on, he did think a separate informative plaque, viewed as people would walk into Old Brick, would be an acceptable alternative to adding more information to the sign. MOTION: Karr moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 26 East Market Street as presented in the application. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 527 North Van Buren Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (window removal). Bristow explained this property is on the corner of Church and Van Buren. It is a contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. She said earlier this year the removal of a non -historic roof canopy and stair entry to a second floor was approved. The house was built as a single-family home, but it had been duplexed long ago. Now, the second -floor entry was going to be removed. The current project is part of returning the house to a single-family home. It does involve some changes in order to make a more functional kitchen. In this case the kitchen has two windows, one facing north, which is on Church Street, and one facing the backyard and the garage on the west, and numerous doors. In order to get some upper cabinets in this kitchen to make it more functional for a family, the proposal is to remove the window that faces west. The upstairs corner room will be a bathroom. In order to have shower space, the proposal is to remove the corresponding window above the kitchen window to create some wall space. She said the windows facing Church Street are original to the house. While the back of the house has had some significant changes, the north side of the house has not had the same kind of changes. Bristow said the windows on the Church Street (north) side would remain. In addition to the two windows proposed to be removed, a cover used to block weather from coming in the back door would be removed. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps show this house always had a one-story HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 19, 2019 Page 4 of 6 bump -out and that it was always enclosed, which is a little bit unusual. Sometimes these were rear porches. Bristow shared a view showing stairs that would eventually be removed. She did not know the status of a window that was presumably removed for the stairs. She thought if the window was going to be opened back up, maybe one of the windows being removed now could be used in that location. Bristow said the house has aluminum siding on it and the applicant has enough aluminum siding for patching. Removing the aluminum siding is not part of the scope of this project. Bristow said Staff recommends approval of this project since there have been significant changes to the exterior rear of the house, and the fact that the house is going to be single-family again. The proposed changes will facilitate the functioning of those spaces. Kuenzli asked if the windows would remain on the bump -out? Bristow said yes. Boyd opened the public hearing. Mike Oliveira with Prestige Properties spoke. He bought this house in the winter. He said it had been a duplex that was owner -occupied on the first floor and the top floor was rented out. He said the house was in pretty bad shape. He said they submitted all the necessary paperwork to convert it from a duplex to a single family. He said the project is currently stalled until they figure out what they can do with the upstairs bathroom and the kitchen. He said the kitchen had approximately five doors and the two windows, making cabinet space very limited. He said he put in a request to the Historic Preservation Commission to take out the two windows and redo the space to make it livable. He thought it was a nice, four -square house. Oliveira thought taking off the back -door entry on the north side was a good thing. He said it would make the property more attractive. He noted they already took off a canopy that used to cover the entire back area. He couldn't remember the details about the window, presumably to the dining room, but said if they could put it back in, they would. Boyd closed the public hearing. Agran thought the project was a positive change for the property and said he supported the application. Boyd also was comfortable with the plan. DeGraw had joined the meeting. Agran said if the dining room window could be opened up and it happened to be the same opening size as the other window, it would be nice if a window removed for the project was installed there, then all the existing windows would match and be of the same age. In the past, Boyd noted the Commission has asked that materials be retained for reuse or salvage. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 19, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Agran said since the dining room window was not in the current application the Commission could only make a recommendation to reuse the window if possible. Kuenzli agreed with Agran and applauded the return of the building to a single-family residence. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 52 —North Van Buren as presented in the application. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Karr. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 19, 2019 Page 6 of 6 :1 [3 0] :7 [do w W &A A;W-1110*]. [K.] ►• I ►•A I RIA Is] • ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-2019 TERM 10/1 11/0 12/1 1/10 2/14 3/14 4/11 5/09 5/23 6/13 8/08 8/19 NAME EXP. 1 8 3 AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E O/E X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/20 X O/E X X X X X X OE X X X BUILTA, ZACH 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X X -- -- BURFORD, 6/30/21 O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X HELEN CLORE, 6/30/20 O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X OE OE X GOSIA DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/19 X X X X O/E X X X X OE X X KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X KUENZLI, 6/30/19 X X X X O/E X X X X OE X X CECILE KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 - X X , QUENTIENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X X X X X SELLERGREN, 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X JORDAN SHOPE, LEE 6/30/21 X X O/E X X X X X OE -- --