Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 11.14.2019 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL October 10, 2019 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore, Lyndi Kiple, Quentin Pitzen, and Jordan Sellergren MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Boyd, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Agran called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS – CONSENT AGENDA: 1037 East Washington Street – College Hill Conservation District (window sill height change for kitchen remodel). Agran asked if anyone had questions. Seeing none, he asked for a motion to approve. MOTION: Burford moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1037 East Washington Street as presented in the application. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 117 North Linn Street – Local Historic Landmark (signage installation). Agran noted the Commission approved a sign similar to this last year. This sign is slightly smaller than that one. He asked if anyone had questions. Seeing none, he asked for a motion to approve. MOTION: Clore moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 117 North Linn Street as presented in the application. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 513 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (second floor rear addition) deferred from August 8, 2019 meeting. Bristow explained 513 Grant Street was the project that came before the Commission in August and was deferred in order to resolve the roof condition. She said she would go over the project briefly as a refresher. This is a four-square on Grant Street that had a one-story addition put on the back before the Commission had guidelines and a district, so it was not done in a way that would be appropriate according to Commission guidelines. It does protrude from the south side of the house a little bit. That made it more difficult to resolve how the roof of the new addition HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 10, 2019 Page 2 of 7 would tie into the existing house. Part of this project will be changing the siding and the window condition on the addition so it will blend with the rest of the house. Bristow explained the new addition is going on the second floor of the existing addition. On this existing addition, one of the changes they will make is replacing the window on the back with a pair of French doors for access to the backyard from that area. Bristow shared views of the house in its current condition, showing how it protrudes a bit past the house on the south side. A 3-D model was viewed, showing the addition with an added second floor. The window pattern in the house will be mimicked in the new addition. Bristow noted the trim details around the window are not shown in this rendering. She said a roof will be installed that has the same pitch around the outside edge as the existing roof on the main house so they can continue the open soffit condition and the gutter condition all the way around. But then, instead of continuing that roof up to its normal height and pitch, it will work similar to a mansard roof where the pitch will change mid-slope, in this case becoming much shallower like a low-slope roof. A rendering of the roof was shown. Another illustration showed how the roof condition will be continued around the perimeter of the house to resolve the corner of the addition. Bristow said there would be a window in each floor on the north side. Clore wondered why not use a hip roof. Bristow said there wasn’t a way to install a typical hip roof and not have it overpower the main house. If the pitch of the house was matched, the addition roof would rise higher than the existing roof because of the location of the ridge for the new addition. One way to counteract that is to make it a flat roof in this area. The fact that the addition itself steps out to the south from the main house also creates an odd condition on that corner. Bristow said a couple houses in town have the condition with a hip roof and a change in slope to a flat area. Historically, when they tended to do that, at least in town, it looked more like a hip roof than a flat roof. Here, it is just creating enough of that soffit and eave condition around the edge of the house to be able to have it flow around more smoothly. Then it is shorter on top, so it doesn’t overpower the main house and protrude above it. It also prevents the need to tie in too far into that roof laterally. Bristow said since the addition did not set back according to Commission guidelines, it really created a condition for this house that made a solution difficult. Bristow shared the second-floor plan. It will just be bedroom, bathroom, and laundry in that corner. Staff felt this roof plan resolved the issue. The owners did hire an architect to resolve the condition. Staff does recommend approval of this solution with this roof condition. Agran asked for other clarifying questions, then opened the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 10, 2019 Page 3 of 7 MOTION: Clore moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 513 Grant Street as presented in the application and Staff report with the following conditions: Door product materials approved by Staff. Pitzen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 601 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (window pair replaced with French doors). Bristow said this house backs up to the Longfellow School. She shared its current condition. She said there is stucco under some of the vinyl siding. The project will not include removal of the vinyl siding at this time. The project will the replacement of a pair of windows with a pair of doors. There are other projects that will be happening with this house and Staff received sketches just today for that. Bristow said that work is Staff review, but the sketches would be shared so the Commission could understand how it will all tie in. On the first image, Bristow noted that part of the project will be rebuilding the front stoop with handrail. On the back of the house there is a bump-out that was created to house a refrigerator in the kitchen, so it’s not historic. That will be removed. The whole rear porch, except for the roof and the piers, will be reconstructed. That will be reconstructed with a porch floor and the appropriate railing and skirting. Part of the project will include construction of a deck. Staff does not have plans for the deck yet. The deck will be its own structure that could be removed and not impact the house. The deck will wrap around the house on the side. It will be set in the eight inches required by the guidelines from the side of the house. Bristow said as part of the project they are moving the kitchen. The new location already has windows with high sills, and is optimal for that. They want to replace a pair of windows with a pair of doors for access to their new deck. They will be able to maintain the existing head height and jamb width so it will have a minimal impact on the house. They will match the existing trim and siding. At the time the Staff report was written they had not submitted a pair of appropriate doors, so the recommendation included Staff approval. Since then, a pair of doors has been submitted that staff finds appropriate for this project and recommends the Commission approve. Bristow said the deck will butt up against the edge of the porch. There will be deck flooring for the deck, because it does not have a roof, and porch flooring for the porch because it does have a roof. Bristow showed a view of the front, with the built area that exists and then a new stoop. It has piers that can remain, but everything else needs to be redone. The scope of this project is replacing two windows with a pair of doors. Staff does recommend approval and recommends approval of this pair of doors. Agran asked for any clarifying questions, then opened the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. MOTION: Clore moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness of the project at 601 Oakland Avenue as presented in the application and Staff report. Kiple seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 1127 Maple Street – Longfellow Historic District (new garage/storage building). HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 10, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Bristow said this group of interesting houses on Maple Street will always be noncontributing to the district, partly because of their orientation, which is facing away from the street. Bristow shared a street view, with a typical rear elevation of a house, slightly raised windowsills, door over in the corner, because when you walk in you either go down to the basement or you go up slightly curved steps directly into the kitchen. There is no garage with this house. There is currently a non-historic shed that will be removed. There is no permit needed for removal of that. Bristow showed the front of the house, which is on the back. The main door walks into the living area. She then showed the back of the house again, noting all the houses along here were built in this orientation. One possibility was the assumption that Clark Court would have gone on through as the street and Maple would have been the alley. Bristow said because this whole stretch of houses will always be noncontributing, there have already been a few changes. There is one slightly longer, fairly large garage that is on the east end of the group that was approved by the Commission. There was also a house to the west of this that had a Mid-Century Modern connection of the house and garage at an angle. The current project is to build a single-car garage that is slightly extended for a work and storage area. Bristow said there were two sets of elevations only because of a change on the west side. She said except for the extended length, this type of project could normally be Staff review, so she suggested it be approved no matter which configuration was used on the west side, which is directly adjacent to the house, only five feet away from the house. Bristow showed the east elevation of the new garage from the neighboring property. There are two windows, slightly more square than typical windows because of the age of this house. Bristow shared the west elevation, which is adjacent to the house, with a passage door near the front door of the house and some windows toward the back. The south elevation shows a passage door and a window, but the applicant has also talked about the possibility of having an overhead door on that side, as well. The owners do not intend to divide the garage internally with a wall into two separate spaces. They do plan to install a patio area that is framed by the house and garage facing Longfellow. Bristow said the other configuration is an option because of the proximity of the house and garage. This wall of the garage will have to be fireproofed. There are several simple steps that can be taken to do that. If they choose not to have a passage door in this area, up next to the house, then it would not have a door here. This shows the windows pushed down together so they are past the end of the house. Bristow said otherwise these two sets of drawings are the same. Staff does not find the configuration of the openings on the south end to be critical because they are not very visible. Bristow shared the site plan. The garage will be set back 60 feet from Maple Street, which allows them to reduce the side setback between the garage and the property line to just three feet. She said window and door products have not yet been submitted for approval. The applicant wants to move forward on some of the groundwork and get that done before it freezes. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 10, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Staff would recommend approving this with Staff approval of the openings and their configuration. Agran asked for clarifying questions. He thought the overhead door on the south side made sense since that’s the front side of the house anyway. A public hearing was opened and closed. Clore asked about the setback differences. She wondered why there could be less than five feet. Bristow said it was part of the zoning code. Agran thought if the garage was closer to the street it may be very close to somebody else’s house. He said it was a good thing to know, too, because a lot of these lots have nonconforming conditions, so to know there might be shifts in how they can conform is good. MOTION: Clore moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1127 Maple Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: Final layout of openings determined prior to approval and all doors and window products approved by Staff. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review. 411 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement). This property recently changed hands. The house will get a new roof. 611 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (roof shingle replacement). This property was being worked on by a roofing company without a permit when Bristow went to review 601 Oakland for tonight’s meeting. Staff is working with them to obtain permits for future work . Minor Review – Staff Review. 721 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (temporary ramp access). This property is noncontributing because of changes. The owners needed to install a temporary ADA access ramp. It will come off the side door of the enclosed porch and then wrap around to the back, ending before it hits the stair structure going to the second floor on the back. 529 Church Street – Goosetown / Horace Mann Conservation District (window replacement). This property is a Mid-Century house that is near Horace Mann. It is getting all new replacement windows. Given the age of the house, the Commission does not review the condition of the windows in the same way older houses are reviewed. Bristow said while these windows were made of wood and could possibly have been repaired, they are not the same quality of material and construction as an older house. The windows will have the same horizontally divided sashes and will be metal-clad wood windows. 116 South Dodge Street – College Green Historic District (front door replacement). This is one of Iowa City’s Prairie School houses. The front doors are on the side, which is typical with Prairie School, where they tend to offset the entrance over to one side or around the corner HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 10, 2019 Page 6 of 7 on the side as in this example. Bristow said the current doors have probably been kicked out by tenants and look like a combination of original historic doors and plywood cobbled together. They will be replaced as double doors. 619 North Linn Street – Northside Historic District (carriage house passage door replacement). The passage door will be replaced. 919 East Washington Street – College Hill Conservation District (porch pier and stair replacement). This house and its companion house were getting their site stairs replaced this year. Bristow noted these houses used to be twins, but this one has been remodeled with an addition and the basement under the porch is an addition, as well. Some of the porch piers have been replaced with concrete in some form. It will all be replaced with a new rock face block. The new block is a little bit white, so the contractor will stain it a little bit gray to try to make it blend in. It will get a new set of wood stairs with an appropriate handrail. Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review. 802 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (new driveway). This driveway was part of the garage addition project. It did have to widen in front of the house because it was a two-car garage and had restrictive site conditions. 1117 Seymour Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (minor changes to a previous COA). This is a minor change to the approved siding for this Commission-approved project 10 South Gilbert Street – Local Historic Landmark (minor changes to a previous COA). This is a minor change to the approved roofline on the Commission-approved stair/elevator addition project. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 MOTION: Burford moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission’s September 12, 2019 meeting. Pitzen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: 803 South Summit Outbuilding Demolition. A Building Official can condemn a building and decide it needs to come down. This structure was not garage-sized and was not that old. Staff did go through a formal process in order to have the Building Official determine that it needed to come down. ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Kiple. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 10, 2019 Page 7 of 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-2019 NAME TERM EXP. 11/08 12/ 13 1/10 2/14 3/14 4/11 5/09 5/23 6/13 8/08 8/19 9/12 10/10 AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 X X O/E O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/20 O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E BUILTA, ZACH 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 6/30/20 X X O/E X X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/19 X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X O/E O/E KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X -- KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/19 X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X O/E O/E KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X X X X X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X SHOPE, LEE 6/30/21 O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E -- -- -- --