The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-09-22 Public hearingNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 22~ day of September, 1998, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consider: 1. An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance by changing the zoning designation of approximately 22 acres from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) for property located in the Summit Street Historic District. Copies of the proposed ordinance are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 ORDINANCE NO. . AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS OF 21.8 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE SUMMIT STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT FROM RS-8, MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO RS-5, LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, several properties owners within tte Summit Street Historic District have requested that portions of the historic district be rezoned from RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family, to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Ran including the Preservation Plan encourage the use of the Zoning Ordinance to protect the character of historic districts; and WHEREAS, the existing development within the Summit Street Historic District generally conforms to the RS-5 zoning district requirements; and WHEREAS, the existing RS-8 zoning dassffication would allow the redevelopmerit and a change in character of many of the properties within the histodc district; end WHEREAS, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the requested rezoning and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SFCTION I. Approval. The property described below is hereby reclassified from its present classification of RS-8, Medium Density Single- Family Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single- Family Residential: An area consisting of the Original Town Plat, OL-1, beginning at the northeast comer of Lot 20, Block 2, Berryhill's Second Addition, thence north 161.7 feat along the westedy right-of-way line of Summit Street, thence west 237.9 feet, thence south 161.7 feet, thence east following the northern lot line of Lot 20, Block 2, Berryhill's Second Addition to the point of beginning. Said area also to contain Lots 11 through 20 of Berryhill's Second Addition, Block Two. Ordinance No. Page 2 Said area also to contain Lots A, B. C, D, X, Y and Z of Jemme's Addition. Said area also to contain the lots of land located within the area beginning at the southeast comer of Lot A, Jemme's Addition, thence west along the south lot lines of Lots A, B. C and D, Jerome's Addition, to a point located at the southwest comer of Lot D, Jemme's Addition, thence south to a point located at the southeast comer of Lot 11, Block 2, Strohm's Addition, thence southeasterly along the northern right-of-way of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad to a point located at the intersection of the wastam fight-of-way line of Summit Street and the northem right-of-way of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, thence north to the point of beginning. Said area also to contain Lots 1, 2, and 5, Regan's First Addition, Block 1. Said area also to contain the west 163.5 feat of Lot 1; the west 169 feat of Lot 2; the west 197 feat of Lot 3; the west 197. feet of Lot 4; the west 197 feat of Lot 5; the wast 208 feat of Lot 6 of Block 3, Summit Hill Addition. Said area also to contain the west 167 feat of Lot 1; the west 167 feet of Lot 2; all except the east 125 feat of Lot 3; the west 159.37 feat of the south 58.01 feat of Lot 4 and the west 177.62 feet of the north 58.01 feat of Lot 4; the west 202 feat of Lot 5; the west 186.6 feat of the next adjoining northern. lot to Lot 5 (70 feat); the west 172 feat of the second adjoining northem lot to Lot 5 (45 feet); the west 172 feet of the third adjoining northem lot to Lot 5 (50 feat); the west 172 feat of the fourth adjoining northem lot to Lot 5 (60 feat); the'west 192 feet of the fifth adjoining northem lot to Lot 5 (138 feat). Said area also to contain Lots 23 and 24, and part of Lots 1 and 2, of Kaufman's Addition, beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 24, thence east 213.6 feet to the southeast comer of Lot 23, thence north 150 feat along the east line of said Lot 23 and extended 52.7 feat, thence west 40 feat, thence north 24 feet, thence west 173.6 feat to a point on the west line of Lot 1, thence south 226.7 feet to the point of beginning. SFCTION II. 7ONING MAP. The Building Official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa to conform to this amendment upon final passage, approval, and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SFCTION III. RFPFAI FR. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Ordinance No, Page 3 SFCTION IV. SFVI=RARII ITY. If any section, provision or pad of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- SFCTION V. FFFFCTIVI= r}ATI=. This Ordi- nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approvad this day of MAYOR A'I'rEST: CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZ98-0010. Summit Street Date: July 16, 1998 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Cecil Kuenzli et. al 705 S. Summit St. Iowa City, IA 52240 338-7362 Requested action: Rezoning from RS-8 to RS-5 Purpose: General down-zoning of portions of Summit Street Historic District Location: Both sides of Summit Street beginning south of Burlington to the Iowa Interstate Railway Surrounding land use and zoning: North- East - South - West - Residential, RNC-20, RM-44; Residential, RS-8 Residential, RS-8 Residential, RM-12, RS-8 Comprehensive Plan: Residential: 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre File date: June 25, 1998 45-day limitation period: August 9, 1998 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Several property owners in the Summit Street Historic District have asked that portions of the district be rezoned from its current classification of RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family. The properties located at 304, 305, and 325 South Summit Street which contain a sorority house and two multi-family buildings, are not included in the zoning request. In the attached statement the applicants indicate that the purpose of the proposed down- zoning is to preserve the single-family residential character of the neighborhood. ANALYSIS: As stated in the zoning ordinance the intent of the RS-5 zone is as follows, "The Low Density Single-Family Residential Zone (RS-5) is primarily intended to provide for single-family residential development consistent with the predominantly single-family residential character of Iowa City. Development in the RS-5 zone is expected to have neighborhood orientation with parks, schools, religious institutions, and neighborhood commercial facilities located in or in close proximity to the development. Compatibility of development in this zone shall be encouraged. Related non- residential uses and structures should be planned and designed to be in character with the scale and pattern of the residential development." 2 The intent of the RS-8 zone as stated in the zoning ordinance is as follows, "The Medium Density Single-Family Residential Zone (RS-8) is primarily intended to provide for the development of small lot single-family dwellings. Because this zone represents a relatively high density for single- family development, dwellings should be in close proximity to all City services and facilities, especially parks, schools, and recreational facilities. Special attention should be given to landscaping and site development. Special provisions of the zone permit dwellings with no side yard to accommodate attached single-family dwellings and to permit conversions of existing structures to duplexes." In essence the two zones are similar in that they are intended to be primarily single family in character but the RS-8 zone is intended to provide for smaller lots. The RS-8 zone also provides for duplex dwellings. As shown on the following table the RS-5 zone requires an 8,000 square foot minimum lot with a lot width of 60 feet and a maximum building coverage of 45 percent. The RS-8 zone has a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 45 feet and allows a maximum building coverage of 40 percent. The other dimensional requirements of the zone, including yard size and building height are the same for both zones. The RS-8 zone allows duplexes as provisional uses provided the minimum lot area is 8,700 square feet. Dimensional Requirements: RS-5 and RS-8 zones Minimum lot area Minimum lot width Maximum coverage Minimum front yard Minimum side yard Minimum rear yard Maximum building height RS -5 RS -8 8,000 5,000 duplex = 8,700 60 feet 45 feet 45% 40% 20 feet 20 feet 5 feet 5 feet 20 feet 20 feet 35 feet 35 feet Both the RS-5 and RS-8 zones allow a maximum of one roomer per unit. Both zones allow, by special exceptions, child care facilities and religious institutions. In addition to these uses the RS-8 zone also allows consideration of special exceptions for private schools, adult day care, and eider congregate housing. Both zones allow family care facilities, accessory apartments, elderly family homes, and eider group homes as provisional uses. When considering down zonings, the number of non-conformities that might be created should be kept to a minimum. If an area contains a large number of non-conformities, it may be difficult to achieve compliance with the new zoning designation and may create hardships for property owners of non-conforming uses who wish to expand or improve their buildings. Table I (attached) contains statistics regarding lot size and land uses for each property within the area proposed for rezoning. Examination of these statistics reveals that the majority of the properties within the district comply with the RS-5 requirements. Ninety-four (94) percent of the lots comply with the minimum 8,000 square foot lot area, 75 percent comply with minimum 60 foot lot width, and 79 percent currently contain single-family homes. The greatest degree of non- conformity would occur in terms of the seven duplexes which are located on 13 percent of the lots within the area (see Figure 1 ). Figure h Land Use by Lot - Summit Street 3 Duplex (7 ots) 13% Multi-Family ( ot) 2% Other (3 lots) 6% Single Family (41 lots) 79% Given these statistics it appears that the current lot configuration and uses on Summit Street are more similar to the characteristics of the RS-5 zone, than the RS-8 zone. The RS-8 designation was given to Summit Street during the comprehensive city-wide rezoning in 1983. Summit Street was likely considered pad of the larger Longfellow Neighborhood which contains smaller lots and is more characteristic of an RS-8 zone. If Summit Street was looked at individually at the time, perhaps consideration might have been given to zoning it RS-5. The Comprehensive Plan including the Preservation Plan encourages the conservation of Iowa City's older neighborhoods. The plan also encourages a mix of housing types within neighborhoods. The present RS-8 zoning would, over time, allow the Summit Street district to become more mixed in that existing homes could be converted to or replaced with duplexes based on the RS-8 zoning requirements. In addition to the seven duplexes currently on the street, 67 percent of the lots could accommodate duplexes. Consideration should be given to whether or not the existing mix with the current number of duplexes on Summit Street, is the desirable mix encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan, or should even more units be introduced into the neighborhood. Although the portion of Summit Street being considered for rezoning contains mostly single- family houses, there are multifamily buildings, group living quarters, duplexes and single-family dwellings of various sizes as well as a few commercial uses within the larger Longfellow Neighborhood. In staff's view this mix of land uses is similar to the neighborhood concepts encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. There has been considerable investment in the preservation and improvement of properties on Summit Street. Rezoning portions of Summit Street to RS-5 would eliminate the possibility that the existing single family buildings would be removed or greatly altered to create duplexes. This would support the intent of the Historic District designation of the area. If the proposed RS-5 zoning is approved, existing duplexes on Summit Street would become legally non-conforming. These properties could not be significantly altered in terms of new additions which would increase their degree of non-conformity. Existing single-family homes in the 4 neighborhood could not be later converted to duplexes and the vacant lot recently created by the M and W Subdivision at 803 Summit Street could only be developed with a single-family home rather than a duplex. An existing vacant lot located to the south of 430 Summit Street would need to be combined with the property at 430 Summit Street. This is because neither 430 Summit Street or the vacant lot would comply with the 60 foot minimum lot dimension requirement of the proposed RS-5 zone. The nonconforming lot provisions of the zoning code (section 14-6T-5-C.) require that when nonconforming lots in this situation are under one ownership they must be combined into one lot to eliminate the nonconformity. The property owner could apply for a Special Exception for a single-family dwelling on this nonconforming lot per section 14-6T5-D of the Zoning Code. This diminishment in property development potential should be weighed against the desire to maintain the current character of Summit Street. Based on the current mix of uses on Summit Street and within the larger Longfellow Neighborhood, the Preservation Plan goals of preserving historic neighborhoods and general compliance of Summit Street with the proposed RS-5 zoning district requirements, staff believes that the requested rezoning is warranted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the requested rezoning of Summit Street from RS-8 to RS-5 be appreved. ATFACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Table 1 -land use survey 3. Applicant statement ppdadmin~stfrep\9810rm .doc Approved by: ' rin Franklin, Director nning & Community Development CITY OF IO~A CITY H II I~ x I~ I ell ~°H I--Hadl tURLINGTON ST Summit Street Hlstodc DIstrict COURT COURT ST I IIII I1'1 HENRY --' LONGFELLOW SCHOOL SEYMOUR AVE rllllllll -IJll)llll II GRANT CT CENTER .... //'OAK ~ ~"°~ II '~"~~:~' ~' lib, p"l'J'n'l-I- IfT T _FF1 T JACKSON SITE LOCATION: Summit Street Historic District REZ98-001 0 Table 1 Summit Street Historic District Land Use Survey SF = Single Family D = Duplex MF = Multi-Family C/Dwelling = Commercial/Dwelling ADDRESS 314 S. Summit Street 330 S. Summit Street 331 S. Summit Street 404 S. Summit Street 405 S. Summit Street 406 S. Summit Street 409 S. Summit Street 411/411 1/2 S. Summit Street 412 S. Summit Street 415 S. Summit Street 416/416 1/2 S. Summit Street 419 S. Summit Street 424 S. Summit Street 428 S. Summit Street 430 S. Summit Street 430 S. Summit Street* 431 S. Summit Street 435/437 S. Summit Street 447 S. Summit Street 508 S. Summit Street 512 S. Summit Street 513 S. Summit Street LAND LOT SIZE LOT S.F. USE/UNITS 77 x 109 8,393 SF 50 x 109 5,450 SF 100 x 238 23,800 SF 138 x 192 26,496 SF 80 x 190 15,200 SF 60 x 173 10,380 SF 60 x 190 11,400 SF 80 x 190 15,200 MF/3 50 x 174 8,700 SF 80 x 190 15,200 SF 45 x 174 7,830 D 120 x 190 15,200 SF 70 x 186 13,020 SF 83 x 202 16,766 SF 52 x 209 10,868 SF 58 x 177 10,266 vacant 60 x 190 11,400 S F 60 x 190 11,400 D 80 x 190 15,200 SF 58 x 160 9,280 SF 70 x 202 14,140 SF 104 x 190 19,760 SF PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS John Nolan, 22 Court Street, Iowa City 52240 John Van Gilder, same Jay & Theresa Semel, same Francoise Blanc, same Andrew Robertson & Susan Travis, same Frederick Goodman, same Jenna Bednar & Scott Page, same Gary Fitzpatrick & Tammy Bowman, same Stephen Bloom & Iris Frost, same Mr. & Mrs. Donald Van Dyke, same Curtis & Shirley Sheets, 202 Shroder Rd, Iowa City 52240 Garret Stewart & Natash Durovicova, same Evelyn Fehling, same Henry & Mary Anne Madden, same Craig & Connie Champion, same Craig & Connie Champion, same Johanna Nelson, same John Shaw, 10 Bella Vista Place, Iowa City 52245 James & Mary McEue, same Mary Throgmorton, same Donald Bodensteiner, same Margaret Nolan, same * This is a vacant lot adjacent to 430 S. Summit Street. Table I ADDRESS 519 S. Summit Street 526 S. Summit Street 530 S. Summit Street 533 S. Summit Street 536 S. Summit Street 540 S. Summit Street 603 S. Summit Street 609 S. Summit Street 620 S. Summit Street 621 S. Summit Street 624 S. Summit Street 705 S. Summit Street 709 S. Summit Street 710 S. Summit Street 715 S. Summit Street 718 S. Summit Street 725 S. Summit Street 730 S. Summit Street 733 S. Summit Street 802 S. Summit Street 803 S. Summit Street 803 S. Summit Street* 809/811 S. Summit Street 812 S. Summit Street 815/817 S. Summit Street LOT SIZE 60 x 190 60 x 167 70 x 167 110x112 50 x 167 50 x 167 70 x 170 80 x 170 90 x 148 126 x 230 100 x 197 61 x 230 51 x 230 100 x 197 95 x 230 100 x 169 95 x 230 100 x 164 90 x 230 80x117 45 x 230 45 x 230 40 x 234 33 x 80 100 x 234 LOT S.F. 11,400 10,020 11,690 12,320 8,350 8,350 11,900 13,600 13,320 28,980 19,700 14,030 11,730 19,700 21,850 16,900 21,850 16,400 20,700 9,360 10,350 10,350 9,364 2,640 23,400 * Pending subdivision application not yet recorded. LAND USE/UNITS SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF D SF SF SF D vacant D C/Dwelling D PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS Sarah Richardson & David Barker, same James Kennedy, same Stanley & Kathleen Cross, same Charles & Jeanne Swisher, same Mark Blumberg & Gwendolyn McCarty, same Gertrude Riley, same Dennis Hutton, same George & Phyllis Lance, same Donald & Nancy Macfarlane, same Christopher Loftus & Sara Sirna, same Margaret Perret, same Rudolf & Cecile Kuenzir, same John & Mary Blegen, same Eleanor Steele & Kirk Walther, same Charles & Elizabeth Hawtry, same Richard & Marry Shepardson, same Esther Ruhland, same David Arkush & Helene Lesage, same James Marshall & Charyl Mason, same Veronica Vieland & John Oberg, same Woodrow & Melinda Houser, 5246 F Ave, Marcus, IA 51035 Wood row & Melinda Houser, 5246 F Ave, Marcus, IA 51035 Werle & Werle Associates, 1 Oak Park Ln, Iowa City 52240 Theodore Heald, same Werle & Werle Associates, 1 Oak Park Ln, Iowa City 52240 Table 1 ADDRESS 818 S. Summit Street 921 Bowery Street 926 Bowery Street 1017 Bowery Street 1011 Sheridan Avenue LOT SIZE 111 x 157 70 x 165 83x 110 122 x 148 80 x 117 LOT S.F. 17,427 11,550 9,130 18,056 9,360 LAND USE/UNITS D SF SF SF SF PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS Theodore Heald, 812 Summit St, Iowa CitV 52240 Lyell Henry & Gretchen Holt, same Jerry & Rayleen Frantz, same Josef & Robin Simeonsson, same Michael & Jody Gunn Applicant's Statement as to Why Zone change is Warranted Twenty-nine residents of the Summit Street Historic District request a down-zoning from the current RS-8 to RS-5 status. (see attachement) The purpose of the down-zoning is to preserve the historic district's original character as a single family residential district. In support of this request we note that the appendices of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan(1992) state that :"Where the historic resources are predominantly single-family residence~ and the city wants to maintain this use, zoning must be implemented to encourage continued single-family uses." Further, we note that the majority of properties in the district already conform to the requirements for RS-5 zoning. # of lots in the historic district 53 # of lots 60'or more in width 46 # of lots less than 60' in width 7 # of lots which measure more than 8000 sq. feet 5 l c~-.-.' -- rj"/ # of lots which measure less than 8000 sq. feet 2 # of rental structures in the historic district 1 (the Delta Gamma sorrority house and the property at 325 S.Summit are located in a RNC-20 zone) As Iowa City grows and changes rapidly it becomes increasingly important to preserve this part of the city's heritage which has been a source of pride to the entire community. Within the district unique nineteenth century architectural styles sit on lots whose proportions are in scale to the houses which occupy them. These properties illustrate a stage in the history of the city's development. Property owners in the historic district view themselves stewards of their historic homes. They work to maintain them for future Iowa City citizens to enjoy. Down-zoning this area would help preserve the unique character of this historic district. Names and addresses of co-applicants for down-zoning Summit Street Historic District Names Addresses John and Kerstin VanGilder 330 S. Summit Henry and Mary Ann Madden Connie and Craig Champion Mr.and Mrs. Charles Skaugstad Jr. Nancy and Donald MacFarlane Eleanor Steele and Kirk Walther 428 S. Summit 430 S. Summit 602 S. Summit 620 S. Summit 710 S. Summit David Arkush and Helene Lesage 730 S. Summit Theresa and Jay Semel Garret Stewart and Natasha Durovicova 331 S. Summit 4 19 S. Summit C::) ;::~7-- .. Dennis Hutton 603 S. Summit Lyell Henry and Gretchen Holt George and Phyllis Lance Rudolf and Cecile Kuenzli 921 Bowery 609 S. Summit 705 S. Summit Charles and Elizabeth Hawtrey Michael and Jody Gunn 715 S. Summit 1011 Sheridan Ave. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: July 31, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission Robert Miklo, Senior Planner REZ98-0010, Summit Street At the July 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting a question was raised about the existing zoning of 325 S. Summit Street. Due to an error in the land use map, staff had indicated that the property is currently zoned RNC-20, Residential Conservation Zone - Medium Density Multi-Family. The property is actually zoned RS-8, Medium Density Single Family. The existing three dwelling units on the property therefore are currently non-conforming. If the property is included in the larger Summit Street rezoning to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family, the existing three units would retain their legal non-conforming status and could continue. However, if the property is redeveloped it could only be redeveloped as a single family dwelling, rather than two dwelling units allowed in the RS-8 Zone. Given the corrected information about the existing zoning on the property staff recommends that it be included in the rezoning from RS-8 to RS-5. A question was also raised regarding the status of non-conforming buildings and non- conforming uses if the rezoning is approved. Attached are excerpts from the regulation of non- conforming uses and structures (Sections 14-6T-3 and 14-6T-4 of the zoning code). The non- conforming use regulations indicate that if a use, such as a duplex in an RS-5 Zone, is destroyed to an extend less than 100 percent of the structure's assessed value, it may be restored for the same non-conforming use. If it is destroyed to an extent of 100 percent, then it could not be restored. In other words a duplex that is damaged by fire but still has some portion of its assessed value remaining could be restored as a duplex. However, if the building is totally destroyed only a single family house could be built on the property. For those properties which currently contain single family houses but which do not conform with yard setbacks or lot areas, the zoning ordinance does include a provision that would allow them to be restored regardless of the percent of destruction. Section 14-6T-4:A.2 states that "a non- conforming building in a historic preservation overlay zone may be placed upon its original foundation or the site of the original foundation regardless of the extent of the damages, provided it is constructed as near as possible to the original exterior design. Attachment ppdadmiNmem/summit.doc 14-6T-2 14-6T-4 extend the degree of nonconformity. Nonconforming structures shall not be reconstructed except in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. 3. A nonconforming single-family use and a nonconforming single-family dwelling and accessory structures on a nonconforming lot shall be granted the same rights as above and any other rights as if the lot were conform- ing. 4. A nonconforming single-family use and a nonconforming single-family dwelling and accessory structures shall also be granted .the same rights as for other nonconforming uses and structures. Structural Alterations: Structural alter- ations may be made to nonconforming buildings to meet the minimum re- quirements of other City codest. (1978 Code §36-79) 14-6T-3: REGULATION OF NONCON- FORMING USES: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, noncon- forming uses and structures for noncon- forming uses shall be regulated as follows: Enlargement or Alteration: No noncon- forming use shall be enlarged nor shall a structure for a nonconforming use be constructed, reconstructed, structurally altered or relocated on the lot. Conversion to Conforming Use Only: A nonconforming use may be convert- ed only to a conforming use. Once a use is converted to a conforming use, C, D, E, it shall not be converted back to a nonconforming use. Damaged Structures: 1. Restoration of Damaged Structure: Any structure for a nonconforming use which has been destroyed or dam- aged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the structure's assessed value may be restored for the same nonconform- ing use as existed before such dam- age. However, the nonconforming use shall not be enlarged to more than existed before such damage. 2. Lot to Revert to Conforming Use: A lot or portion of a lot on which is locat- ed a structure for a nonconforming use that has been destroyed or dam- aged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of one hundred percent (100%) or more of the structure's assessed value shall revert to a conforming use. Discontinuance of Nonconforming Use: A lot or portion of a lot devoted to a nonconforming use which is dis- continued for a period of one year shall revert to a conforming use. Sign Regulations: A nonconforming use shall be permitted to have the same amount and type of signage as would be allowed for such use in the most restrictive zone in which such nonconforming use is allowed. (1978 Code §36-80) 14-6T-4: REGULATION OF NONCON- FORMING STRUCTURES: Non- 1. See Chapter 5 of this Title. ~owa C~ty 1 14-6T-4 14-6T-5 conforming structures shall be regulated as follows: A. Damage to Structures: 1. Any nonconforming structure which has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the structure's assessed value may be restored to the same degree of non- conformity or less. 2. Except for buildings in an historic preservation overlay zone, a noncon- forming structure which has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explo- sion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of one hundred percent (100%) or more of the structure's assessed value shall not be restored except in compliance with the provi- sions of this Chapter. A nonconform- ing building in an historic preservation overlay zone may be placed upon its original foundation or the site of the original foundation regardless of the extent of the damages, provided it is reconstructed as near as possible to the original exterior design. B, Change of Conforming Use in a Non- conforming Structure: Any noncon- forming structure containing a con- forming use may be converted to another conforming use, provided there shall not result an increase in the degree of nonconformity of the structure. C, Alteration of Nonconforming Structure: A nonconforming structure may be structurally altered, provided it is structurally altered in a way which will not increase or extend its nonconfor- mity or in a way which will reduce its nonconformity. Relocation of Nonconforming Struc- ture on Same Lot: Any nonconforming structure which is relocated on the same lot shall thereafter conform to the provisions of this Chapter. (1978 Code §36-81 ) 14-6T-5: REGULATION OF NONCON- FORMING LOTS: Development of nonconforming lots shall be regulated as follows: A, Any use or structure for a use permit- ted in the zone in which the lot is located may be established or in- stalled, provided the use or structure meets all other requirements of this Chapter. No use or structure for a use, either one of which requires more lot area than presently exists, shall be permitted; except, however, in any zone in which single-family dwellings are permitted, a single-family dwelling and accessory buildings may be in- stalled on any lot of record on the effective date hereof, notwithstanding its failure to meet the requirements of the zone for lot area. All existing conforming or nonconform- ing uses and structures shall be treat- ed as if such uses and structures were established on a conforming lot. However, no use nor structure for a use, either one of which requires more lot area than presently exists and the structure of which has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the ex- tent of one hundred percent (100%) or more of the structure's assessed val- ue, shall be restored except in compli- Iowa City Summit Street Land Use BURLINGTON ST I--Ll ~. I 'T ~ COURT ST. ,',,\X\\'f_ E I HENRY LONGFELLOW SCHOOL SEYMOUR AVE. CENTER i ~ l-Tlllll Id*Z_ '4 --',~' ____7 z~' :~_--'--~! z_ ~ HI I .t-Hdll JH LEGEND ~ Single Family ~ Multi Family ~ Duplex Vacant Commercial/Dwelling August 3, 1998 City of Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dear Members of the Commission: I support the current application to down-zone South Summit Street from RS-8 to RS-5. I feel RS-5 a more appropriate underlying zone for this histodc residential neighborhood. As the owner of the duplex at 435-437 South Summit Street, I realize this re-zoning suddenly makes my property non-conforming. This limits use of the property. 435-437 South Summit was built as a duplex in 1926. The best use of this property is the continuation of this historic use. Contrary to the information given at the last Planning & Zoning meeting, this zoning change will indeed prohibit me from rebuilding a duplex at this address should the existing structure be one-hundred percent destroyed. This zoning change prohibits me from adding habitable space to my duplex. My neighbors will retain the dght to build an addition, I will not. This is not the intent of this request to down-zone. I ask this Commission to support and recommend the adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance permitting continuation of histodc use of property in down-zoned areas. Further, I request this amendment permit the addition of habitable space to histodc use structures which become non- conforming as the result of down-zoning, provided the additional space does not expand the scope of the non-conforming use. Respectfully submitted, John F. Shaw, AIA 437 S. Summit St. Iowa City, Iowa City of Iowa City Residents and Staff of Summit Street Historical Neighborhood RE: Rezoning tiom RS-8 to RS-5 Dear Summit Street Neighbors and Staff: I am writing to you to express my concerns about down zoning a neighborhood which has stood the test of time. Down zoning is not a step towards preserving this historical district's original character, but a step towards some neighbors having greater control over other neighbors properties. It has been stated that the Historic Districts Preservation Plan (1992) is intended to preserve neighborhoods in which "the historic resources are predominantly single family". Single family homes are not the only type of homes included in historical neighborhoods. I do understand that the majority of the properties in this historic district conform to the RS-5 zoning (39 lots), but what will we do with the 13 lots that do not conform under either of the two zoning requirements. The following are addresses which do not conform under the 60' or more width requirement: 1 .) 536 S. Summit 2.) 540 S. Summit 3.) 709 S. Summit 4.) 803 S. Summit 5 .) Lot 2 M&W Subdivision 6.) 809/811 S. Summit 7.) 812 S. Summit 8.) 330 S. Summit 9.) 412 S. Summit 10.) 416/416 ½ S. Summit 11 .) 430 S. Summit 12.) 435 S. Summit 13.) 508 S. Summit Mark Blumberg and Gwendolyn McCarthy Gertrude Riley John and Mary Blegen Woodrow and Melinda Houser Brad and Becky Houser Werle & Werle Associates Theodore Heald John Van Gilder Stephen Bloom & Iris Frost Curtis & Shirley Sheets Craig and Connie Champion Craig and Connie Champion Mary Throgmorton (A total of 13 properties do not conform under the 60' width compared to 7 which was stated in the staff report.) The following addresses contain less than the 8000 square foot requirement for a RS-5 zone: 1 .) 330 S. Summit 2.) 416/416 ½ S. Summit 3.) 812 S. Summit John Van Gilder Curtis and Shirley Sheets Theodore Heald The total number of lots that are less than 8000 square feet is three, which may seem insignificant to the staff or some of the neighbors, however, if we rezone, these lots will become unbuildable, which will virtually make these lots become valueless. The staff report states that only 2 properties are affected by the zoning change. Page 2 of the staff report states that the RS-8 zoning is to provide for smaller lots. This is not correct zoning when we have 13 lots out of 52 total lots that do not meet the requirements. (That is 25% of all lots listed, excluding the property located in the north section of the historic district.) Also stated on the second page of the staff report is '~the number of non-conformities should be kept to a minimum and could create a hardship for property owners who wish to expand or improve their property." The question that arises to the staff is what do you plan to do with the 25% of the properties that do not meet the requirements if you chose to down zone. I understand that some of the property owners will be eligible to apply for a variance or special exception, but what do we do when this is not approved or it is not approved for what structure was originally built or purchased by the owner. It seems strange to me that this zoning change is needed when the neighborhood is in an upward movement for repairs and restoration to properties which may have been tarnished throughout the years. This neighborhood has been on the uprise for the past 5 years and shows no signs to slow down now or in the future (this is also stated in the staff report). It also seems strange to rezone a neighborhood and diminish the potential of all of the houses being duplexed when the average assessed value for these properties in this district is $181,052.31. Based on the value alone, the average rental rate per unit would have to be $90,526. 1 6per unit and these numbers do not include the cost for remodeling or converting to a duplex (such as plumbing, heating, electrical, kitchen, doorways, stairs, walls, etc.). The bottom line to this issue is that staff and neighbors have found a way to exclude the properties to the north where they feel that the zoning change would be to hard to change, however, they have included the south half of the historic district even though 6 of 13 properties will be non-conforming. It should be noted that changing a zone that is surrounded by RS-8, RM-12, RM-44, RNC-20 zones would create a pocket of non- conforming lots. Problems may occur with the 13 non-conforming lots that will need to apply for special exemptions to be usable as only single family homes, and this does not include the need for repairs, remodeling, rebuilding or expanding. This also brings up one final point that all owners who are non-conforming will have to disclose that their home is non-conforming as a latent defect which will have an underlying effect on their properties. Sincerely, Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Commission: As property owners on Summit Street, we have concerns about the proposed rezoning in that area from RS-8 to RS-5. We would like to protest this action as written, but have a suggestion for a modification that we feel would better serve all involved. We suggest that the rezoning request be changed to apply to the area north of Sheridan Ave. We feel the area south of Sheridan Ave. should be left as RS-8 since there are already several multi-family dwellings there. This area is also different from the north area in that it already does not match the historical flavor of the rest of Summit Street. We ask that the Commission consider this suggestion. lithere are any questions we can be reached at 712-376-4484. You can also speak to our representatives Brad Houser at 354-0581, or Dell Richard, attorney, at 354-9592. We are also against this proposal with regards to the decrease in property values it would cause for all in the neighborhood. I would also advise people to read the staff report, which we did not receive, which shows that people with present double lots would not have double lots to sell in the future under the proposed rezoning. Also, if I read the ordinances correctly, people on many of the present lots would not be able to rebuild to the present specifications of their homes with the downzoning. This would mean if a fire or wind or whatever event happened, the home specifications they have now could not be rebuilt to the downzoned guidlelines. People need to know the ramilieations they will cause themselves in this rezoning proposal. I also noticed that an exception for the rezoning was made for some property in the historic district to the north. This being a sorority and rooming house which are zoned RNC20 and RS8. We are asking for this same consideration to the south of Sheridan street by leaving this area zoned RS8. Thank you for your consideration. Woody and Mindy Houser 5246 F, Ave. Marcus, Iowa 51035 DAVID AND HI~'L~NE ARKUSH 730 SOUTH SUMMIT SLEET IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 July 14, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission Iowa City, Iowa Re: REZ98-0010 Summit Street This is to reaffirm our strong support for the proposed rezoning of the Summit Street Historic district from RS-8 to RS-5. We are the owners of 730 S. Summit St. and are among the applicants for the rezoning. We wil be out of town on July 16 and unable to attend the meeting. ..~~l~nb~~sage Arkush R. David Arkush ~'~ Cit of Iowa City, MEMO'RANDUM Date: To: From: Re: August 6, 1998 Chairman Lea Supple and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Sarah E. Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney~ - Downzoning of Summit Street Historic District: Request for continuation of non-conforming use and/or code amen. dment As you know, Mr. John Shaw owns a duplex in the area proposed for rezoning from RS-8 to RS-5 within the Summit Street Historic District. Such a downzoning will result in Mr. Shaw's duplex property being considered a nonconforming structure within the rezoned area. Mr. Shaw expresses concerns about his ability to add bathrooms to the lower-level of his duplex. Under the Uniform Building Code, bathrooms are not considered habitable space, and thus, the addition of bathrooms to the structure would not be prohibited as an expansion of the nonconforming use. However, Mr. Shaw is still correct in his assertion that, while his neighbors would retain the right to build an addition, he would not enjoy such a right under the prohibitions for expanding a nonconforming use. Lastly, Mr. Shaw requests that the Commission consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would address this situation by permitting the continuation and expansion of historic use properties in downzoned areas. Although standard procedure, I wish to caution the Commission that any such code amendment should be the result of a survey and study to establish the City-wide effects of such an amendment on nonconforming properties, as such an amendment will alter the basic premises upon which nonconforming properties are regulated, and as such, need to be the result of articulated, supported findings, rather than a single case. August 16, 1998 To From Re : Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission : Cecile Kuenzli : Down-zoning Summit Street Historic District to RS-5 This letter comes as a followup to the formal meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 6th. I shall briefly review what happened at that meeting then outline the issues which the twenty-seven co-applicants and I feel make down-zoning the Summit Street Historic District an important issue for Iowa City. At the August 6 meeting the Commission voted 3-2 to accept an application to down-zone the Summit Street Historic District from RS-8 to RS-5. However, the vote needed to be 4-1 in order for the application to be forwarded to City Council. The Commission then rescinded its vote in order to vote again on the topic at its next meeting on August 20. The outcome of the vote came as a complete surprise to applicants since the City Planning Staff's report had recommended the down-zoning and since there had been no objections raised by commissioners at either their July 13 work session or the July 16 formal session or at their August 3 work session. Nevertheless, two of the five commissioners in attendance at the formal meeting on August 6 voted negatively. They explained their vote by stating that they thought that the historic preservation overlay zone provided adequate protection for the historic district. The point I wish to make is precisely that the historic overlay zoning alone fails to protect the district. A new duplex is going to be built on a site that was originally a 90' wide lot because the RS-8 zoning permitted subdividing that lot despite the fact that the resulting two small lots are incompatible with other lot sizes on the block and in the distict as a whole. If it happened once it could happen again. Currently there are at least three other lots in the district which could be used for new developments if the district is not down-zoned to RS-5. All the current owners of these lots wholeheartedly support a down-zoning. As long as the underlying zoning is RS-8 anyone can construct new duplexes in the historic district. The Historic Preservation Commission has no authority to prevent that from happening. John Shaw, a past chairperson of that commission stated at that August 6 meeting that the commission's authority over new construction in historic districts extends only to issues of design and materials but not to issues of land use. He emphasized that land use issues are determined by zoning designations. Marlys Svendsen of Svendsen Tyler Associates who authored Iowa City's Historic Preservation Plan and Ordinance, which were approved by City Council, has stated that the Historic Plan and ordinance were never intended to provide the sole protection.for historic districts. If it were the case, then there would be no need for zoning at all. Rather, she said, preservation results from a combination of appropriate zoning and the kind of 'design review that the Historic Preservation Commission provides. Design review does not and cannot concern itself with land use issues. If yet more new duplexes are built then the ninteenth-century historic character of the district will be harmed. Currently, twelve duplexes and multi-unit structures exist in the Historic District. When the City Council voted in 1984 to make Summit Street a local Historic District they were in effect saying that the district was worthy of preserving as it then existed. What existed was a district of predominantly single-family nineteenth-century homes which sit well back from the street on large lots. The character of the Summit Street Historic District derives from the open spaces and lot sizes on the street and the abundance of large shade trees along the street as well as from the structures themselves. William J. Murtagh, the first Keeper of the National Historic Trust, gives support to this view in his seminal book Keeping Time:The History and Theory of Preservation in America (1990), when he writes: "The preservability of a neighborhood stands in direct relationship not only to the individual buildings and their sum total, but how they relate to each other, side by side, and across the width of the street. The paving materials .... street furniture, as well as open space, are all elements which help weave the visual tapestry of the neighborhood." And he adds:"...the significance of a historic district depends on a collection of buildings, sites, structures, objects, and spaces that have an integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association." If the current zoning continues then it is only a matter of time before more duplexes fill up the open spaces that give the district its historic character and appeal. The question of diminishing property owners' rights has arisen repeatedly in the minds of some commissioners. Yet all over the city zoning codes do exactly that. They define and limit what property owners can do with their properties: how high they can build fences, where they can site garages, how close to their neighbors and to the street they can build. People all over the city have to accept regulations and limitations that afford them a degree of protection. Why shouldn't the owners on Summit Street be entitled to the protection of an RS-5 designation when the majority of the properties meet the definition for R,S-5 zoning, when a majodty of owners support it, and when the City Planning Office recommends it? Whatever diminishment of rights that might occur is outweighed by the benefits of stabilizing the historic district in its present state. The entire community benefits from efforts of property owners in the Summit Street Historic District who preserve their homes from the past for today's citizens to enjoy as they drive and walk through the neighborhood. By designating part of Summit Street as aj~historic district, the City Council declared that this area was an asset to the whole city and w~rthy of being preserved in its 19th-century character as a predominantly single-family historic district. Zoning it RS 5 will help preserve the historic character of the Summit Street Historic District. Summit Street Protests 1.) 416/416 V2 S. Summit Street, Curtis and Shirley Sheets: 7,830 sq. ~. 2.) 803 S. Summit Street, Woodrow and Melinda Houser: 10,350 sq. ft. 3.) 805 S. Summit Street, Becky Houser: 10,350 sq. ft. Total: 28,530 sq. ft. 43,560 sq. ft. = 1 acre 28,530/43,560 sq. ft. = .65 acre .65/21 acres = 3% of Historic District TO: F~~ ea Wa. the undersigned. being the owners of twenty percent or more of the ar of the I)'l'OpeFty i~clud~d in tha pFoposad zoning change. o~ tha owners o( ~Bn~ p~FC~Bt O{ ~OFB O( th~ pmp~ which Is IoceIed ~ithi~ ~o hu~d{ed (88~ o( the 8~8F~0~ bouDdeFI88 o( the pmpe~ (oF which thB zoning cha~gB Is pFOpOsad. do h~{~by pintBet ~ rBZOni~g O( ~B (ollowi~g prop~: PROTEST OF REZONING HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezontng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of Prop~/Address '~' STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this .. day of ,19 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. By ~(/ - Owner(s) of Notan/Public in and for the State of Iowa STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) for said County and Stat personally ~ppeared ~j~z~l.~0 el. -~(ZI~D and ~ to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. TO: PROTEST OF REZONING HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the courtall, all in accordance with §41 4.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of Property Address .-r, , ,J .~-~j.,..4~ STATE OF IOWA ) On this ~day of ~ / ~. , ~ 9 ~ ~, before me. the undersigned. a Nota~ Pubmic in and for said Coun~ and State~ersonally appeared ~ and No d for the State of lows By: Owner(s) Of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , 19 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State. personally appeared and to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iow;~ TO: PROTEST OF REZONING HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area :6t the i~perty included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the property which Is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) 88: On this ~o s Notary Public in and for said G perso and he d foregoing instrument ~d acknowledg~ ~at ~ey exec~ed the same ~ their volunta~ a~ ~d deed. By: Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this (2 ;~ day of S/~ta~ , 19 ,~ ~ before me. the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and , personally appeared and to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa To : Members of the City Council --~ From: Cecile Kuenzli Re : Down-zoning Summit Street Historic District to RS-5 _..:,· ~ . '_'~3 Date: September 17,1998 : ,, This letter comes as a followup to the August 20 meeting of the Planning and Z o Commission at which commissioners voted 6-0 in favor of down-zoning Summit St. from RS-8 to RS-5. I shall briefly review issues which the twenty-seven co-applicants and I feel make down-zoning the Summit Street Historic District necessary. I first became aware of the connection between zoning and neighborhood preservation in 1992, as a member of the subcommittee of the LNA that applied for a down-zoning of the ADS site on Sheridan Ave. Acting upon the advice of the Planning Dept. we applied for a change from Industrial use to RS-8 hoping that the development of that parcel of land would reflect the same mix of housing types which characterizes the rest of the Longfellow Neighborhood. Instead the original developer planned to build 21 duplexes on the site. Not one single-family residence. Today seven of those duplexes are squeezed onto the site with a bare minimum of side-yard clearances The developers are maxing out what the zoning permits them to do. The next lesson on the relevance of zoning to neighborhood conservation occurred last winter when the new owners of a 90' foot wide lot at 803 S. Summit successfully petitioned HIstoric Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission to subdivide the lot into two 45 foot lots. There was already an old duplex on the lot. The owners' intent was to build another duplex on the newly divided portion of the original 90' lot. I argued before the Historic Preservation Commission that two forty-five foot lots were inconsistent with the average lot size on Summit St. i argued that part of the character of the historic district is defined by the width of the lots on which the old large homes sit. The opposing point of view stated that this was a unique opportunity for infill in older neighborhoods. I argued that Iowa City's oldest Historic District was an inappropriate place for infill because such infill altered the very streetscape which the historic district was intended to preserve. Some commissioners agreed with my arguments. Nevertheless, the Historic Preservation Commission had to allow the Iot's subdivision because the underlying RS-8 zoning classification permitted it. It was then that I realized that the Historic District's historic preservation overlay zoning was really inadequate to preserve the district. Historic Preservation is in fact a zoning issue. I wish to emphasize that the historic overlay zoning alone fails to protect the Historic District. Marlys Svendsen of Svendsen Tyler Associates who authored Iowa City's historic preservation plan and ordinance has stated that the ordinance was never intended to provide the sole protection for historic districts. Rather, she said, historic preservation results from a combination of zoning and the kind of design review that the Historic Preservation Commission provides. Design review does not and cannot concern itself with land use issues. Currently the foundation of the new duplex at 803 is curing. What concerns the applicants for this down-zoning is that something like this could happen again in the Historic District. The Planning Department's report states that 67% of the lots in the Historic District are large enough to accomodate duplexes. Further construction of new duplexes would forever alter the ninteenth-century character of the Historic District Yet, as long as the underlying zoning is RS-8 anyone can construct new duplexes in the Historic District. The Historic Preservation Commission has no authority to prevent that from happening. John Shaw, a past chairperson of that commission stated at the August 6 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that the Historic Preservation Commission's authority over new construction in historic districts extends only to issues of design and materials but not to issues of land use. He emphasized that land use issues are determined by zoning designations. If the current zoning continues it is only a matter of time before more duplexes fill up the open spaces that give the district its historic character and appeal. The character of the Summit Street Historic District derives from the open spaces and lot sizes on the street and the abundance of large shade trees along the street as well as from the structures themselves. This view finds support in the seminal work by the first Keeper of the National Historic Trust, William J. Murtagh, (Keeping Time:The History and Theory of Preservation in America, 1990 ), when he writes: "The preservability of a neighborhood stands in direct relationship not only to the individual buildings and their sum total, but how they relate to each other, side by side, and across the width of the street. The paving materials..., street furniture, as well as open space, are all elements which help weave the visual tapestry of the neighborhood." And he adds:"...the significance of a historic district depends on a collection of buildings, sites, structures, objects, and spaces that have an integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association." The question of diminishment of property owners' rights arises repeatedly when down-zoning is mentioned. Yet all over the city existing zoning codes do exactly that. They define and limit what property owners can do with their properties: how high they can build fences, where they can site garages, how close to their neighbors and to the street they can build. People all over the city have to accept regulations and limitations that afford them a degree of protection. Why shouldn't the property owners within the Summit Street Historic District be entitled to the protection of an RS-5 designation when 94 percent of the properties meet the definition for RS-5 zoning, when a majority of owners support it, and when the City Planning Office recommends it? In preparing this application, I spoke with every property owner in the District. but one. The only opposition came from the owners of three rental units none of whom lives within the Historic District. Whatever diminishment of rights that might occur is outweighed by the benefits of stabilizing the historic district in its present state. The entire community benefits from efforts of property owners in the Summit Street Historic District who preserve their homes from the past for today's citizens to enjoy as they drive and walk through the neighborhood. By creating the Summit Street Historic District the City Council declared that this area was an asset to the whole city and worthy of being preserved in its nineteenth-century character as a predominantly single-family historic district. Zoning it RS 5 will help preserve the historic character of the Summit Street Historic District for all Iowa Citians to enjoy in the future. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center at the regularly scheduled Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the 22nd day of September, 1998, for the purpose of hearing comments for or against the amending of Title 3 of the City Code entitled "Finances, Taxation & Fees," Chapter 4 on City utilities to change the rates for fees and charges for landfill use. Information on the proposed rate changes is available at the City Clerk's Office and the Director of Finance. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK ~nadmn\landnph.doc Prepared by: Donald J. Yucuis, Finance Director, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5052 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES," CHAPTER 4, "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES" OF THE CITY CODE, TO CHANGE VARIOUS FEES FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL. WHEREAS, the City has developed a Landfill Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Landfill Master Plan outlines projected costs to continue operating the landfill for the next 33 years and to close it; and WHEREAS, the City would also like to add a separate disposal fee for asbestos containing materials and contaminated soils; and WHEREAS, based on the plan, Landfill use fees can be decreased for solid waste disposal for the next two years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 5, entitled "Solid Waste Disposal," of the City Code is hereby amended by repealing subsections entitled "Special Wastes Disposal Fees," "Disposal of Large Items Fees (see also collection of large items fees above)" and "Landfill Use Fees" and substituting in lieu thereof the following: Special Wastes Disposal 14-3H-10B Fees Disposal of special wastes 2 times the (except for asbestos landfill use fees containing materials and in this section contaminated soils) Minimum fee Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) Non-Friable ACM, from Iowa City premises subject to a property tax 2 times the landfill use fee for one ton $100.00/ton Ordinance No. Page 2 and City-owned property Non-Friable ACM, from other locations $105.00~on Friable ACM, from Iowa City premises subject to a property tax and City- owned property Friable ACM, from other locations Minimum fee for any regulated ACM Contaminated Soil Minimum fee for contaminated soil $100.00/cubic yard $105.00/cubic yard $100.00 $15.00/ton $150.00 Disposal of large items fees (see also collection of large items fees above) Appliance Disposal Fees Commercial per item disposed Residential per item disposed Tire Disposal Fee Per pound Subject to minimum fee Untreated wood waste and yard waste Minimum Landfill Use Fees 14-3H-10D1 $1.00/cu bic foot $12.50 (at landfill scale house) 14-3H-10D2 $.07 $3.00 $24.00/ton $2.00 14-3H-10G Solid waste from Iowa City premises subject to a property tax and City- owned property Total landfill fee per ton (includes state fee per ton) All other solid waste $38.50 Total landfill fee per ton (includes state fee per ton) Minimum fee in lieu of tonnage fees (160 Ibs. or less) $43.50 Ordinance No. Page 3 Solid waste from Iowa $3.00 City premises subject to a property tax and City- owned property All other solid waste $3.25 SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a Whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, to be collected as set forth in §14-3A-4, City Code. Passed and approved this __ day of ,1998. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK City Attomey's Office NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the 22"d day of September, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, regarding the appeal to City Council of the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a new primary building on Lots 1 & 2, M&W Addition (803 S. Summit Street), which appeal was filed with the City Clerk on August 20, 1998 by applicant Bradford J. Houser. Persons interested in expressing their views concerning this matter, either verbally or in writing, will be given the opportunity to be heard at the above- mentioned time and place. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK eleanoAm&wnph.doc 7 September 18th, 1998 Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: Recently I requested your understanding in the review and decision on which types of~ material could be used for new construction in historical districts. My brother, Woody Houser II and I have split a duplex lot in the 800 block of South Summit Street. We cooperated with the historic boards requirements for the design of our building and the building elevation, however, when it came time to decide on the type of material to use for the siding, we had a difference of opinion and style. The committee itself was split in their decision, which ended in a 4-4 tied vote and ultimately defeated our request to use fiber cement siding in place of wood (i.e. redwood, cedar, pine, etc.). We first requested to use vinyl siding in a top quality restoration series, and the advisory architect suggested using the fiber cement product, which we had intended to use as an accent material. I would like to request that you take a look at the following properties for top quality vinyl siding examples: 1.921 Bowery Street, Iowa City 2. 926 Bowery Street, Iowa City 3. 628 N. Linn Street, Iowa City The City staff has sent you a list of addresses to review for the fiber cement product. I would also like to request that you take into consideration the properties that surround our new property at 805 and 807 S. Summit Street which either have vinyl siding or aluminum siding, as well as slate siding. It is my opinion that the historic board is setting unfair standards for our project which will prevent us from being able to complete the project with the high standards in which we originally began, due to the difference in material costs. Some board members had previously allowed vinyl siding on a newly constructed garage just to the south of our own project. We would like the council to understand that the costs involved in project will play a large part in it's overall appearance and quality, and forcing us to use the same wood products that were used in the 1920's-1950's places unfair construction costs on us, as well as unfair and ongoing material costs. The following items are rough costs for the proposed products, which includes the total cost for the house as well as the garage: Wood Vinyl fiber cement $20,000.00-$25,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 -only one color of paint -with multi-color trim -only one color City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: September 17, 1998 City Council ~ Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Houser Appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission's Decision Requiring Wood Siding on the New Primary Building at 803 S. Summit Street The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the rules that govern your consideration of the above-referenced appeal. In deciding this appeal you must first determine: 1. Whether the Commission exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law and the Historic Preservation regulations of the City Code; and 2. Whether the Commission's action was patently arbitrary or capricious. You will receive a memo from Planning staff outlining the guidelines that govern the Historic Preservation Commission's deliberations and decisions. Element No. 1 above requires you to determine whether the Commission followed (used/relied on) these guidelines. Element No. 2 requires you to determine whether the Commission's decision to require wood siding was patently arbitrary and capricious. A decision is "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it is made without regard to the law or the facts of the case. Arora v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, 564 N.W. 2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1997). The above-stated "standard of review" is a narrow one. Council is not entitled to substitute its judgment for that of the Commission. In other words, you may not reverse the Commission's decision merely because you disagree with it. Rather, if you find that the Commission exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law, and that its decision was not patently arbitrary or capricious then you must affirm the Commission's decision. If you find that the Commission did not exercise its powers and follow the guidelines established by law or did act patently arbitrarily and capriciously you may, in conformity with the provisions of the Historic Preservation regulations, affirm (for a different reason), wholly or partly; reverse, wholly or partly; or, modify the decision of the Commission requiring wood siding. You may make such decision as ought to have been made, and to that end you will have the powers of the Commission. In other words, you will stand in the shoes of the Commission and are bound by all the guidelines and rules that govern the Commission's decisions on applications for certificates of appropriateness and may make a decision in accordance with those guidelines and rules. With respect to your deliberations in connection with the above, it is essential that you read the entire record of the proceedings before the Commission and all information submitted to you as part of the public hearing process. You are required to decide the appeal within a "reasonable time." If, at Tuesday night's meeting, you are in need of any additional information in order to make a decision then you should continue the public hearing and defer a decision. The agenda is only intended to give notice that a motion to decide the appeal may be made. The substance of that motion is, of course, unknown at this point. If, on Tuesday night, you decide that you have all the information you need and no further time for deliberation is necessary you should close the public hearing and decide the appeal. The motion to decide the appeal will be in the form of a motion to affirm or reverse, wholly or partly, or modify the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission concerning the type of siding required. The reasons for your decision must be clearly articulated. If you have any questions, please contact me. cc: Scott Kugler Karin Franklin Steve Atkins Marian Karr eleanor~mem\hpcg-17b.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: September 16, 1998 City Council Scott Kugler, Associate Planner Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission Decision Regarding the Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Lots 1 and 2, M&W Addition (803 S. Summit Street) At its August 17, 1998, meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission approved a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new duplex and two garages for Lots 1 and 2, M&W Addition, subject to a number of conditions or modifications to the plans that were submitted, and twice revised, by the applicant. The application considered by the Commission included a proposal for a new duplex and three-stall garage on Lot 2, as well as a new three-stall garage to serve an existing duplex located on Lot 1, (803 S. Summit Street). One of the conditions or modifications incorporated into the Commission's approval required the use of wood siding on the buildings rather than vinyl or fiber cement siding materials that were proposed by the applicant. Upon issuance of the certificate of appropriateness, the applicant pursued and received a building permit to begin construction, and at the same time filed an appeal of the specific condition requiring wood siding on the structures. The applicant is requesting to be able to use any of the three siding materials discussed and considered by the Commission while reviewing this application. Attached please find a report from the Commission outlining its deliberations and decision regarding the siding material issue, as well as the materials that were forwarded to the Commission regarding this application for its August 13 and 17 meetings. Minutes from both of these meetings are also attached. Samples of the siding materials that were on hand at the Commission meetings will be available for the Council to view at its work session and formal meeting. In reviewing the minutes, you will note that three siding materials were given consideration by the Commission. The initial application requested that vinyl siding be permitted on the proposed buildings. At its August 13 meeting, this issue was discussed at length, and it was the consensus of the Commission that vinyl siding should not be permitted (there was a straw poll vote of 8-0 against the use of vinyl siding). The Commission felt it did not have enough information regarding the fiber cement siding to consider approving the use of the material at that meeting. The Commission directed staff to find examples in the Iowa City area where the material has been used so that Commission members would be able to see what it looks like before voting. The following addresses were provided for the Commission to view: · 1836 G Street (the fiber cement material was used on the east side of the house and portions of an addition at the front of the house) · 1903 F Street (the second story of an addition at the south side of the property is sided with the fiber cement material) · SW corner of F Street and Fourth Avenue (the house is sided with wood; the garage and breezeway are sided in fiber cement) · 431 Oakland Avenue (an outbuilding at the rear of the property, visible from the alley east of Oakland, is sided with fiber cement siding) Upon viewing these properties and discussing the merits of the fiber cement siding at its August 17 meeting, the Commission voted 4-4 on a motion to permit the material to be used on the proposed buildings. The tie vote results in a defeat of the motion. The Commission then voted 6-2 to approve the certificate of appropriateness subject to a number of conditions, including the requirement for wood siding. The Commission also discussed this application at its August 27 meeting while considering a motion to reconsider its 4-4 vote on the fiber cement siding. The motion to reconsider failed on a 2-3 vote. Please refer to the minutes from that meeting, which are on the agenda for acceptance at the September 22 formal meeting. The City's Historic Preservation Regulations explain the Council's responsibilities with regard to consideration of this appeal, and the City Attorney will advise the Council on its responsibilities regarding this item. Basically, the Council must determine if the Commission followed the guidelines established by law for such a review, and whether or not its action was patently arbitrary or capricious. Section 14-4C-7D of the regulations requires that in making a decision regarding a certificate of appropriateness, the Commission must consider whether the proposed change in appearance on a property conforms to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. In making this determination, the regulations state that the Commission may use the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, or other guidelines that are adopted by the Commission, to aid in the determination. The Standards for Rehabilitation and the City adopted guidelines are attached, as well as excerpts from the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings that may apply to this case. The attached minutes detail the Commission's discussions with regard to these documents. Representatives from the Commission will be in attendance at both the September 21 work session and the September 22 formal meeting to answer any questions that you may have regarding this agenda item. ,~8/20/98 ~ 14:59 FA.I 319 354 6432 IOWA P~ALTY ~002 Au~.~st 20'~, 1998 City Clerk Office City of Iowa City ¢10 E. Wash'.mgton Street iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Cormell: We are requesting a change in the siding material rextuimi' br our Certificate of ' Appropriateness. We feel that the cost to use wood siding on a new ~ is unfair and excessive. The committee had an alternate product cal led "Fiber Cemunt" proporal by the Voluntary Architectural Advisor and this product w ts agreeable by us as well The commiXtee has since then decided that only wood products can be used for this project. This neighborhood has a varieW of materials which inch& wood, ~, brick, vinyl siding and aluminum siding. We f~l that ff we are forced nto using only wood, then all historic aruas that are worked in the future will have to foi ow tb~ sarfz guidelines. We would like to propose the use ofvinyl siding, fiber cement siding, or posatq~ly wood siding, but at our own choice. The committee voted on a 4-4 tie n using the fiber c, em~nt as an alternate to vinyl siding. but due two vacant positions on 1 me committee, we did not have a decidin~ vote. Please talk to Scott Ktoeger about the homes which have used the new fiber cement siding, but also have it blended with the older wood sidini .. If you have any questions for me, feel.free to call me at my office, 354-05gl or at hom~ 626-2492. Thank you for your time and cousideration Sincerely, C')-- --; ;Z :C. Y" Iowa City Historic September 16, 1998 Iowa City City Council Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: This letter is in response to Bradford Houser's appeal of the Certificate of Appropriateness for his duplex at 803 South Summit Street. At issue is the condition attached to the Certificate requiring wood siding in the construction. The purpose in writing is to inform you of the considerations that went into the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission's decision, as well as to present you with the Commission's perspective on several points related to this issue. By way of review, Mr. Houser's plans were first discussed by the Commission on August 13. At that time, a list of conditions for approval of his application was prepared which included a requirement that a building material other than vinyl siding be used. In a memo to Mr. Houser dated August 14, it was stated that wood siding was the preferred material but that the Commission would consider the fiber cement composite product offered as an alternative. Since Commission members were largely unfamiliar with this product, Scott Kugler provided them with literature as well as local addresses where this type of siding had been used, and six of the eight members were able to personally inspect these homes and/or garages. At its next meeting, on August 17, the Commission voted 4-4 on a motion to allow the use of the fiber cement product, the tie vote defeating the motion. However, a second motion to allow construction conditional upon the use of wood siding passed 6-2, and a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued. At its August 27 meeting, the Commission voted 3-2 not D reconsider its previous vote to disallow fiber cetvent board for this application. The decision on the siding material for Mr. Houser's duplex was the result of a length}, process during which the Commission spent, by one estimate, more than 75 person-hours engaged in the following: confen'ing with Mr. Houser and the architect, John Shaw (who volunteered time to assist the Commission in its review); reviewing the plans; visiting the site of the proposed construction; reading the literature provided on the fiber cement material; and inspecting local properties where the fiber cement board had been used. In addition, as evidenced by the minutes of the August 13, August 17 and August 27 meetings, extended discussions took place involving the Commission members as well as members of the general public- The discourse touched on a number of issues, including the pros and cons of the building materials themselves, the physical context of this project, and the requirements set forth in the 1990 Procedures and Guidelines for Review of Projects in Historic Districts. In the initial discussion involving the choice of siding material, the use of vinyl siding was debated for more than an hour before being rejected by a unanimous vote. While there was agreement that vinyl siding is appropriate in some instances and should not be dismissed out of hand, many objections were raised. In the end, the Commission felt that this material as proposed for Mr. Houser's project essentially failed to comply with item I.B. of Section B of the Procedures and Guidelines in that it would not be "compatible and harmonious with the historic structures which contribute to the historic character in a district." Vinyl siding has been used on a very few Summit Street properties but only on noncontributing structures--those that "do not contribute to said character." Wood is the siding material of choice for several reasons: it is authentic; it is compatible and harmonious with the contributing structures in the Summit Street historic district; and it has withstood the test of time. It is also expensive, however, and in keeping with the Commission's commitment to seek out lower-cost alternatives to conventional methods and materials whenever available, the possibility of using fiber cement board was explored. In many ways, fiber cement board seemed an acceptable compromise for the siding problem. In appearance, it is very similar to wood siding--not a perfect match, but the Commission agreed it is very' close, particularly when viewed from a distance. It resists rotting and reportedly holds paint well. Most importantly, at least from the property owner's point of view, it is significantly cheaper than wood. Mr. Houser stated that the cost to side his duplex in fiber cement board would be one- third to less than one-half the cost of wood siding. Them is much to recommend this product. The main problem with fiber cement board and perhaps the pnncipal reason for the Commission 's refusal to endorse it is that it is largely untested in our climate. Although this product has been used for a number of years in hot, humid places like Australia and New Zealand, its introduction in :o !his country is much more recent, and its use here has been confined primarily to the South. The Commission was unable to obtain any information, even from the architects at the State Historical Society of Iowa, to indicate how well this product would withstand the rigors of our harsh Midwest winters. A comparison with Masonite, a product touted some years ago as a lower- cost, durable alternative to wood which failed to live up to expectations, caused some on the Commission to be reluctant to approve such an untested building material, despite its compelling cost advantage. The net result of this discussion was the 4-4 vote. While not part of the Commission discussions described above, three points need to be made regarding Mr. Houser's appeal. To begin with, he proposes the use of vinyl, fiber cement or wood siding but requests that the choice be left to his discretion. Inasmuch as financial considerations framed much of the discussion surrounding his application, there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Houser would not choose the least expensive material: vinyl. As previously stated, this material was unanimously rejected by the Commission. In addition, it is worth noting that Mr. Houser began construction on his duplex even belbre his appeal was heard. This indicates that, should his appeal be denied, he is prepared to accept the condition imposed by the Certificate of Appropriateness, namely, that wood siding be used on his project. Finally, Mr. Houser suggests in his letter that the requirement to use wood siding will set a precedent and become the standard for all future siding projects. This need not be a concern for two reasons. First, siding issues generally do not come before the Commission, since the removal and/or replacement of siding does not require a building permit. Mr. Houser required Commission approval only because his project involves new construction. In such a case, as was stated several times during the course of the discussions, the Commission currently makes and w'ill continue to make its decisions on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the phystcal context of each project. This is, after all, what is required by the Procedures and Guidelines. Building height, roof pitch, setbacks, window openings--these are just a few of the elements in addition to siding material that must be considered "in relation to surrounding structures." The Commission does not have the authority to employ a single set of standards in its decision-making. Second, in at least four instances in the past, the Commission has allowed the use of synthetic siding in a historic district. Each of these situations involved an outbuilding such as a garage that was not readily visible from the street, but they are evidence nonetheless of the Commission's willingness to consider all types of building materials, depending on the specific application. Since its inception, the Historic Preservation Commission has worked hard to strike a balance between protecting the rights of property owners and maintaining the standards necessary to preserve the city's architectural heritage. Attempts have been made to compromise whenever possible and have been very successful. Indeed, in the original discussions with Mr. Houser, the Commission expressed an interest in seeing added to his plans a brick chimney, a dormer roof, and windows in the rear facade, all elements used extensively throughout the Summit Street district. Recognizing the costs associated with these design features, however, the Commission required none to be incorporated into the final design. While working toward a compromise is desirable in many instances, its path can lead down a slippery slope, and caution must be used here. The Commission's ability to protect and preserve historic resources depends on how well it can develop and maintain a level of trust with owners of historic properties. There is an understanding between the Commission and these homeowners that, if properties are entrusted for protection and preservation, the Commission will uphold standards high enough to ensure that protection can take place. To compromise in this instance, especially if the use of vinyl siding is permitted, is to place in jeopardy the trust that has taken so long to engender and also perhaps to make more difficult future district nominations the Commission undertakes, Additionally, it is important to remember that we are talking here about the first in~ll project in the oldest historic district and arguably the most important symbol of historic preservation in the city. While the Commission's vote to require wood is not precedent-setting for the reasons previously mentioned, Council's vote to allow anything other than wood surely will be. If, for example, Mr. Houser is permitted to use vinyl siding in the Summit Street Historic District, a presumption will be established that this material is acceptable for use everywhere. How will the Commission be ablc to overcome such a presumption when siding issues are raised in the future? It is not possible to include in this letter every point raised in the discussions leading up to the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness for 803 South Summit Street; many passionate and persuasive arguments were made. It is hoped that Council members will have the opportunity to review the minutes from the Commission meetings before rendering a decision on this matter. Truly ,','ours, Doris Malkmus Chair Iowa City Historic Preservation CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Lots I & 2, M & W Addition (803 S. Summit St.) A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held in the Iowa City Civic Center on August 17, 1998, at 5:00 p.m. The following members of the Commission were present: Lars Anderson; Frank Gersh; Mike Gunn; Betty Kelly, Vice-Chair; Doris Malkmus, Chair; Pamela Michaud; and Michaelanne Widness. The Commission approved a certificate of appropriateness for Lots 1 & 2, M & W Addition (803 S. Summit St.) to allow the construction of a new primary building, subject to the following: · Vinyl siding will not be permitted, as proposed. Wood siding is required. · There shall be a minimum of 12 inches of exposed foundation, or the appearance of an exposed foundation, between grade and the lowest siding plank, and the porch/patio should be elevated above grade in a similar manner. · The front doors should be wood with a window or windows. · The rear deck and stair rail should be painted to match the trim color of the house. · There should be no corner molding or trim around the edges of the chimney, as was illustrated on the plans submitted on July 7, 1998. · The front porch/patio columns should match what is shown on the plan, which scales to dimensions of 10 inches on the lower portion and 8 inches on the upper portion. · The trim around the windows and the corner boards should be a minimum of 4 inches in width. · The soffit materials shall be wood and have a bead board type appearance. The bead pattern should run parallel with the face of the building. · The exposed lap-width of the siding should be within the range of 3-5 inches. · The garage doors should have a flat finish rather than pressed panels. Garage door materials were not specified. The Commission's vote was 6-2. The Commission approved the alterations as illustrated on the plans submitted by the applicant at the August 17 meeting, subject to the above mentioned conditions. The Commission found that the proposed alterations complied with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and its adopted guidelines. Betty:~Kly,~hair Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission l / / I / / / I I / /_A.E, / / / / / / I / / / F' '\ .£O'cj'l, / ) SUMMIT STFIEET )-- SITE PLAN & W/ff)DITION IOIIA CITY, IOIt'A '1 j i 111 t /- r,,-) 1! .<:[ LI_I L[ -- I /- I 1 (Y | 1 N ,- CDDD'~ ' CDDD ;" 'EDDD .~,:!.,,,DDDF_, , ,i~ ... IIIIIIIIIIIIII """'CDDD EDDD '" EDDD "," EE~E]E] "' EDDD '~..n....n....n....q,~ HOUSER DEVELOPMENT Summit St. Duplex SPECIFICATIONS FOUNDATION - POURED CONCRETE AS PER PLAN. WALL FRAMING - SHALL BE SPRUCE, FIR OR WHITEWOOD AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS, WITH 7/16" WAFFER SHEATH/NG. FLOOR FRANffNG - SHALL BE (lsT FLOOR: TGI - 16" - 55 SERIES - 16. O.C AND 2~AND 3Rt~ FLOOR: TGI - 9 1/4 - 15 SERIES - 16 O.C.) TRUSSES WITH 'A" OSB T&G AND 3A" GYPCRETE SOUND PROOFING (2~ AND 3~ FLOOR ONLY). 7-31-98 4. BUILDING EXTERIOR A. VINYL SIDING (AS PER PLAN) B. ENGINEERED TRUSSES, FELT AND SHINGLES (AS PER PLAN) C. ROOF VENTILATION - VETARIDGE D. SOFHT AND FACIA - ALUMINUM WITH VENTILATION GRILLS E. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS - ALLrMINUM EXTERIOR DOORS - STANLEY INSULATED STEEL DOOR, OR EQUAL, AS PER PLAN (DEAD BOLTS AND PEEP SITES ON APARTMENT ENTRIES). EXTERIOR WINDOWS - WENCO VINYL WINDOWS 760 SERIES WITH DOUBLE INSULATED GLASS, OR EQUAL. SUIT ENTRY DOORS - (OPTION A) - SOLID CORE, METAL JAMBS PREFINISHED LEGACY OAK WITH PASSAGE KNOB, DEAD BOLT LOCK (MASTER KEYED), AND PEEP SITES. (OPTION B) - SOLID CORE, METAL JAMBS PRIMED WHITE VENEER, WITH PASSAGE KNOB, DEAD BOLT LOCK (MASTER KEYED), AND PEEP SITES. INTERIOR TRIM - (ALL INTERIOR TRIM SHALL BE REAL OAK. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE). A. INTERIOR DOORS - 13/8" HOLLOW CORE WITH SPLIT JAMB.. B. CASING - 2 ¼" OAK OR MDF - PRIMED WHITE o 3 5/8" WIDE. C. BASE - RUBBER OR MDF - PRIMED WHITE - 5 1/4" WIDE. D. WINDOWS -WRAPPED OPENINGS, SILLS TO BE OAK OR MDF AND SIDES PAINTED WITH ENAMEL PAINT. E. CLOSET DOORS 13/8" HOLLOW CORE BIFOLD DOORS WITH WRAPPED OPENINGS. F. CLOSET SHELVES - WIRE MOLD, WHITE G. FURNACE ROOM DOOR HOLLOW CORE WITH THRESHOLD (OPTION B) - 13/8 SOLID CORE DOORS WITH SPLIT JAMBS AND SOLID DOOR IN ALL PLACEMENT. INTERIOR WALLS AND CEILINGS A. SHEETROCK - 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD THROUGHOUT. B. TEXTURE - ORANGE PEEL TEXTURE ON ALL WALLS AND CEILINGS. C. PAINT - ALL WALLS AND CEILINGS SHALL HAVE TWO COATS OF SHERWIN WILLIAMS LATEX VELVET ENAMEL OR EQUAL. COLOR SHALL BE PICKED BY OWNER. (NOTE: FIRST COAT TO BE FOG COAT). 10. INSULATION A. STUD WALLS - 3 ½ HBERGLASS (R-11) 5 ½ - CR-19) B. ATTIC AREA - BLOWN CELLULOSE CR-38) 11. PLUMBING FIXTURES - (AS STATED BELOW OR EQUAL) A. KOHLER GLASS FIBERGLASS K-1585 TUB/SHOWER MODULES B. KOHLER K- 15101 SHOWER VALVES C. KOHLER K-3421 -K STOOLS WITH KOH2LER K4716-T SEATS (WHITE) D. STOOL SUPPLIES WITH VALVES E. MARBLE LAVATORIES F. KOHLER Ko15241 LAVATORY FAUCETS G. LAVATORY SUPPLIES WITH VALVES H. DAYTON 33 X 21 STAINLESS STEEL SINKS, WITH KOHLER K-15235 FAUCET (OPTION FOR A WHITE CAST IRON SINK AND WHITE FAUCET) I. SINK SUPPLIES WITH VALVES J. BADGER DISPOSALS K. RHEEM 40 GALLON NATURAL GAS WATER HEATERS APT. L. COMPLETE GAS SERVICES, ALL METERED SEPARATELY M. THREE WOODFORD #65, C EYED, FROSTPROOF SILL COCKS - ONE IN GARAGE AREA (CONSTRUCTION MANAGER TO PROVIDE A LOCATION) N. WATER SOFTNER BY-PASS HOOK-UP 12. ELECTRIC - (AS PER PLAN AND TO NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE) - 100 AMP SERVICES, ALL METERED SEPARATELY 13. BATH ACCESSORIES A. 2 - 18" CHROME TOWEL BARS PER BATH B. 1 - CHROME PAPER HOLDER PER BATH C. 1 - EXHAUST FAN PER BATH D. 1 - TUB ENCLOSURE PER BATH 60" TEMPERED GLASS E. 1 - 48" X 36" OR 30" X 36" MIRROR WITH MOUNTING HARDWARE 14. HEAT AND AIR CONDITIONING A. LENNOX 60,000 BTU NATURAL GAS FURNACE OR EQUAL 15. CABINETS A. MERILLAT CIRRUS CABINETS WITH SOLID OAK FRAMES, OR EQUAL. B. ALL COUNTER TOPS TO BE POST FORM TOPS. 16. APPLIANCES - (ALL APPLIANCES TO BE WHITE COLOR) APPLIANCES TO BE WH/RLPOOL, CROSLEY, GE, OR EQUAL.) A. TBX14SAX G.E. REFRIDGERATOR B. JBSO3 G.E. ELECTRIC RANGE C. GSDS00 G.E. DISHWASHER 17. CARPET AND DRAPES (AS SPECIFIED BELOW OR EQUAL) A. SEE ATTACHED SPECIHCATION SHEET B. VINYL BLINDS 18. MISCELLANEOUS A. PREWIRE FOR CABLE TELEVISION OR SATELITE DISH, 1 OUTLET PER BEDROOM, PLUS 2 IN LIVING ROOM B. PREWIRE FOR TELEPHONE/MULTIPLE LINE (SAME NUMBER AS CABLE AND KITCHEN) 19. HREPLACE A. PREWIRE FOR GAS HREPLACE WITH OPTIONAL FAN BLOWER.\ (ELECTRICIAN TO MAKE CONNECTION TO FIREPLACE.) B. RUN GAS PIPING FOR GAS FIREPLACE (PLUMBER TO CONNECT TO FIREPLACE). C. ONE CABLE TV OUTLET LOCATION TO BE SPECIFIED BY OWNER. D. ONE ELECTRICAL OUTLET LOCATION TO BE SPECIFIED BY OWNER. E. FIREPLACE INSTALLED, VENTED, SET UP, CLEANED, STARTED BY SUPPLIER. F. HEAT AND GLO GNDC30 NOVUS 30" CIRCULATING OR EQUAL. DV STD VENT KIT W/90 OR EQUAL. 20. SITE WORK - (AS PER PLAN) A. PARKING AREA SHALL BE 5" THICK 4000 PSI CONCRETE B. SIDEWALKS SHALL BE 4" THICK WITH 3500 PSI CONCRETE C. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE COVERED WITH SOD. I0. SECRETARY OF TI-E L'NTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REILtBIIITATION A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal tt~. change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. ",' 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. 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. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Distinctive features., ~nz d 'she)f an construction 'techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 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. 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. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 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. 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. Feb. 1990 IOWA CITY HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES - ADOPTED 1990 SECTION B: GUIDELINES The following are guidelines intended to guide property owners in the construction of new buildings and exterior alterations in Iowa City's designated historic districts. In addition, these guidelines shall be used by the Historic Preservation Commission in determining whether to issue Certificates of Appropriateness and for the review of demolition permits. In no case may these guideline be used to attempt to replace or override the requirements of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. I. GENERAL The design of new structures need not mimic historical styles. The intent of these guidelines is to encourage creativity in design, including contemporary styles. However, such designs must be harmonious with surrounding structures, and must not compromise the historic character of the district. Be Compatibility and harmony will be measured as those attributes relate to the historic structures which contribute to the historic character in a district, and not as they relate to buildings which do not contribute to said character. These guidelines may be amended from time to time as deemed appropriate by the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council. II. BUILDING HEIGHT The number of stories of new buildings should be, to the nearest half-story, the average of the number of stories of adjacent buildings characteristic of the district, not to exceed the maximum height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. I!1. ROOF FORM Roof pitch and roof shape should be similar to existing architecturally significant structures located in the district. BJ The roof volumes and number of roof faces of new construction should be similar to that of buildings of architectural significance within the immediate area. Roofing materials should be consistent with the style of the building on which the roof is being placed, and should also be consistent with the predominant materials used on surrounding buildings. IV. VERTICAL EMPHASIS When vertical emphasis is a dominant characteristic in the historic district, it should be reinforced by overall building height, vertical windows, doors with transoms, grouping of windows and/or window bays, and floor-to-floor heights. 2 VI. VII. The exterior floor-to-floor heights of new construction should match those of adjacent historic buildings or other buildings of architectural signfficance which exist in the same district. STREETSCAPE A. Setbacks should be similar to surrounding buildings. Spacing between buildings on a block and the size of building fronts should be similar to the existing spacing and size that is already established on a block face. Blank facades which break the pattern on the street should not be used in historic districts. THE FRONT Entry levels of new buildings should match the height of entry levels of adjacent architecturally significant buildings unless the topography of the site makes this inappropriate. Emphasis should be given to the entry so that the entry is visible from the street. Front porches and steps, emphasis at door areas, and other decorative features can be used if such is a. lready established as a neighborhood pattern. Porches should have a connection to the interior by the use of windows and doors. DETAILS The windows of new construction should repeat the lines, size and shape of window openings used on surrounding buildings. Large areas of solid blank wall should not be created on any highly visible elevations. OUTBUILDINGS AND GARAGES Garages and other outbuildings should be located in positions relative to the main building which are similar to other garages and outbuildings in the historic district, to the extent such placement is possible under the Zoning Ordinance. Double-wide garage door openings are discouraged if visible from the public right-of-way. Additional curb cuts should not be created where an existing alley is being used for the sole means of access by at least 50% of the lots on the block. A curb 3 IX. cut may be created when there is no other reasonably functional alternative for access to garages and outbuildings. New outbuildings should be subordinate to and compatible with the main building. E. The roof form of any new outbuilding should be similar to the main building. F. Prefabricated metal outbuildings are strongly discouraged. OTHER CONSTRUCTION Garages built into new residential structures should not visually dominate the front of the building, nor be set closer to the street than the main part of the building. The amount of exposed foundation should be similar to other architecturally significant buildings in the district. To the extent possible, required parking should be placed behind the principal building, and be hidden from street view. DEMOLITION Based upon National Register Criteria for Evaluation established by the National Park Sen/ice, a structure's classification as key, contributing or intrusion will govern the review of any request for demolition. A Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of any key structure will be denied unless the applicant can demonstrate that the building is structurally unsound and irretrievable and/or the denial of a demolition permit would create a significant economic hardship for the applicant. A Certfficate of Appropriateness for the demolition of any contributing structure may be approved, after a 60-day period from date of application, during which the applicant and the Commission may endeavor to find an alternative means of developing the site. Any structure which is not a key or contributing structure in the historic district shall be considered an intrusion and will be approved for demolition upon request. LEGAL DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS The Guidelines were initially developed in 1977 to help property owners, developers, and Federal managers apply the Secretary of the in- terior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" during the/project planning stage by providing general design and technical recommendations. Unlike the Standards, the Guidelines are ,or codified as program requirements. Together with the "Standards for Rehabilitation" they provide a model process for owners, developers, and Federal agency managers to follow. 1~ should be noted at the outset that the Guidelines are intended to assist in applying the Standards to projects generally: consequent y. they are not meant to give case-specific advice or address Exceptions or rare instances. For example, they cannot tell an owner or developer which features of their own historic building are important in defining the historic character and must be preserved--although examples are provid- ed in each section--or which features could be altered, if necessary, for the new use. This kind of careful case-by-case decisionmaking is best accomplished by seeking assistance from qualified historic preservation professionals in the planning stage of the project. Such prolessionals include architects, archileclural historians, historians, archeologists and others who are skilled in the preservation. rehabilitalion and restoration of historic properties. ' . The Guidelines pertain to historic buildings of all sizes, materials, occupancy, and construction types; and apply to interior and exterior work as well as new exlerior additions. Those approaches, treatments, and techniques that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" are listed in the "Recommended" column on the left; those approaches, treatments. and techniques which could adversely affect a building's historic character are listed in the "Not Recommended" column on the right. To provide clear and consistent guidance for owners, developers, and federal agency managers to follow, the "Recommended" courses of ac- !ion in each section are Itsled in order of historic preservation concerns so that a rehabilitation project may be successfully planned and com- pleted-one that, first, assures the preservation of a building's important or "character-defining" architectural materials and features and, second, makes possible an efficient contemporary use. Rehabilitation guidance in each section begins with protection and maintenance, that work which should be maximized in every project to enhance overall preservation goals. Next, where some deterioration is present, repair o| the building's historic materials and features is recommended. Finally, when deterioration is so extensive !hat repair is not possible. the most problemalic area of work is considered: replacement of historic materials and features with new materials. To further guide the owner and developer in planning a successful rehabilitation project, those complex design issues dealing with new use re- quirements such as alterations and additions are highlighted at the end of each section to underscore the need for particular sensitivity in these areas. ]denti[y, Retain, and Preserve The guidance that is basic to the treatment of all historic buildings--ldenlifylng, relalnlng, and preserving the form and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are important in defining the historic character--is always listed first in the "Recommended" column. The parallel "Not Recommended" column lists the types of actions that are most apt to cause the diminution or even loss of the building's historic character. It should be remembered, however, that such loss of character is just as often caused by the cumulative effect of 8 tries of actions that would seem to be minor interventions. Thus. the guidance in nil of the "Not Recommended" colun~ns must be vie~,~ett /that larger context. e.g.. for the total impact on a historic building. Protect and Maintain After identifying those materials and features that are important anti must be retained in the process of rehabilitati{~n w,,rk. then protecting and maintaining them are addressed. Protection generally involves the least degree of intervention and is preparatory to other w{}rk. F,}r example, protection includes tile mainlenance of historic material Ihrough treatments such as rust removal, caulking. limited I,aint rean.val and re-application of protective coatings; the cyclical cleaning of roof gutter syslems; or installation ol fencing, protective plyw~..I. ala~n~ systems and other temporary protective measures. Although a historic building will usually require more extensive work. an overall evalua- tion of its physical condition should always begin at this level. Repair Next, when the physical condition of character-defining materials and features warrants additional work repairing is recommended Guidance for the repair of historic maierials such as masonry, wood, and architectural metals again begins with the least degree of interven- tion possible such as patching, piecing-in, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing or upgrading them according t~ recognized preser- vation methods. Repairing also includes the limited replacement in kind--or with compatible substitute material --t,f extensively deteri,,rated or~missing parts of features when there are surviving prototypes (for example. brackets, dentils. steps, plaster. or portions of slate t,r tile rtn~f- inS). Although using the same kind of material is always the preferred option, substitute material is acceptable if the form and design as ~vell as the substitute material itself convey the visual appearance of the remaining parts of the feature and finish. Replace Following repair in the hierarchy, guidance is provided for replacing an entire character-defining feature with new material because the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair (for example. an exterior cornice; an interior staircase; or a complete porch ,~ storefront). If the essential form and detailing are still evident so that the physical evidence can be used to re-establish the feature as an in- tegral part of the rehabilitation project, then its replacement is appropriate. Like the guidance for repair, the preferred option is al~.~ays replacement of the entire feature in kind, that is, with the same material. Because this approach may not always be technically or economical- ly feasible, provisions are made to consider the use of a compatible substitute material. It should be noted that, while the National Park Service guidelines recommend the replacement of an entire character-defining feature unde~ certain well-defined circumstances, they ~ever recommend removal and replacemerit with new material of a feature that --although damaged or deteriorated--could reasonably be repaired and thus preserved. Design for Missing Historic Features When an entire interior or exterior feature is missing (for example, an entrance, or cast iron facade; or a principal staircase), it no longer plays a role in physically defining the historic character of the building unless it can be accurately recovered in form and detailing through the proc- 9 ess of carefully documenting the historical appearance. Where an important architectural feature is missing, its recovery is al~vays rec.m mended in the guidelines as the first or preferred, course of action. Thus, if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentati.n exists so that the feature may be accurately reproduced, and if it is desireable to re-establish the feature as part of the building's historital ap pearance. then designing and constructing a new feature based on such information is appropriate. However, a secotfd acceptable option t~r the replacement feature is a new design that is compatible with the remaining character-defining features of the historic building. The nev., design should always take into account the size, scale, and material of the historic building itself and, most importantly, should be clearly dif- ferentiated so that a false historical appearance is not created. Alterations/Additions to Historic Buildings Some exterior and interior alterations to the historic building are generally needed to assure its continued use. but it is most important ~hal such alteratic~ns do not radically change, obscure. or destroy character-defining spaces. materials, features. or finishes. Alterati~.~s may .~ clude providing additional parking space on an existing historic building site; cutting new entrances or windows on sec.ndary eleval i.ns, in serting an additional floor; installing an entirely new mechanical system; or creating an atrium or light well. Alteration may als,-~ include the selective removal of buildings or other features of the environment or building site that are intrusive and therefore detract from the ,c~verall historic character. The construction of an exterior addition to a historic building may seem to be essential for the new use, but it is emphasized in the guidehnt, s that such new additions should be avoided, if possible. and considered o~ly after it is determined that those needs cannot be met by alle~in,g secondary, i.e., non character-defining interior spaces. If, after a thorough evaluation of interior solutions. an exterior addition is still judged to be the only viable alternative. it should be designed and constructed to be clearly differentiated from the historic building and so that the character-defining features are not radically changed. obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Additions to historic buildings are referenced within specific sections of the guidelines such as Site, Roof. Structural Systems, elc.. but are also considered in more detail in a separate section, NEW ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS. Health and Safety Code Requirements; Energy Retrofitring These sections of the rehabilitation guidance address work done to meet health and safety code requirements (for example, providing free access to historic buildings); or retrofitting measures to conserve energy (for example, installing solar collectors in an unobtrusivt. tion on the site). Although this work is quite often an important aspect of/'ehabilitation projects, it is usually not part of the overall protecting or repairing character-defining features; rather. such work is assessed for its potential negative impact on the building's character. For this reason, particular care must be taken not to radically change. obscure, damage, or destroy character-defining materials features in the process of rehabilitation work to meet code and energy requirements. 10 Wood: Clapboard, aveather- board, shingles. and other wooden siding and decorative elements Because it can be easily shaped by sawing, pinning, carving, anti gouging. w{,~nl monly used malerial for archileclural lealures such as clapboards, cornices, brae kels. shullers, columns and balustrades. These wooden lealures--both [unclional and decoralive may be imporlanl in defining the historic characler of the building and thus lheir retent on, prolec lmn'. and repair are ol particular importance in rehabililalion projects. Reco...e.ded Identifying, retaining, and preserving wood features that are im- portant in defining the overall historic character of the building such as siding, cornices, brackets, window architraves, and door- way pediments; and their paints, finishes, and colors, Protecting and maintaining wood features by providing proper drainage so that water is not allowed to stand on flat, horizontal surfaces or accumulate in decorative features, Not Reco...emted Removing or radically changing wood features ~vhich are mq~ot taut in defining the overall historic character ot the building that, as a result, the character is diminished. Removing a major portion of the historic wood from a iacade in- stead of repairing or replacing only the deteriorated wood, then reconstructing the facade' with new material in order to achieve a uniform or "improved" appearance. Radically changing the type of finish or its color or accent scheme so that the historic character of the exterior is diminished. Stripping historically painted surfaces to bare wood, then applying clear finishes or stains in order to create a "natural look." Stripping paint or varnish to bare wood rather than repairing or reapplying a special finish, i.e., a grained finish to an exterior wood feature such as a front door. Failing to identify, evaluate, and treat the causes of wood deterioration, including faulty/lashing, leaking gutters, cracks and holes in siding, deteriorated caulking in joints and seams, plant material growing too close to wood surfaces, or insect or |ungus in- festalton. 16 I (continued) Recommended Applying chemical preservatives to wood features such as beam ends or outriggers that are exposed to decay hazards and are Iradi- lionally unpainted. Retaining coatings such as paint that help protect the wood from moisture and ultraviolet light. Paint removal should be considered only where there is paint surface deterioration and as part of an overall maintenance program which involves repainting or apply- ing other appropriate proleclive coatings. Inspecting painted wood surfaces to determine whether repainting is necessary or if cleaning is all that is required. Removing damaged or deteriorated paint to the next sound layer using the gentlest method possible (handscraping and handsanding), then repainting. Using with care electric hot-air guns on decorative wood features and electric heat plates on flat wood surfaces when paint is so deteriorated that total removal is necessary prior to repainting. Using chemical strippers primarily to supplement other methods such as handscraping, handsanding and the above-recommended thermal devices. Detachable wooden elements such as shutters, doors, and columns may--with the proper safeguards--be chemically dip-stripped. Applying compatible paint coating systems following proper sur- face preparation. Repainting with colors that are appropriate to the historic building and district. Not Recommended Using chemical preservatives such as creosote which can change appearance o[ wood tealures unless they were used historically. Stripping paint or other coatings to reveal bare wood. thus ing historically coated surfaces to the effects of accelerated weathering. Removing paint that is firmly adhering to, and thus, protecting wood surfaces. Using destructive paint removal methods such as a propane butant torches, sandblasting or waterblasting. These methods can irreversibly damage historic woodwork. Using thermal devices improperly so that the historic woodwork is scorched. Failing to neutralize the wood thoroughly alter using chemicals so that new paint does not adhere. Allowing detachable wood features to soak too long in a caustic solution so that the wood grain is raised and the surface toughened. Failing to follow manufacturers' product and application instruc- tions when repainting exterior woodwork. Using new colors that are inappropriate to the historic building or district. 17 Wood (continued) Recomn, ended Not Recommended Evaluating the overall condition of the wood to determine whether more than protection and maintenance are required, that is, if repairs to wood features will be necessary. Repairing wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the wood using recognized preservation methods. Repair may also include the limited replacement in kind--or with compatible substitute material--of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of features where there are surviving prototypes such as brackets, moldings, or sections of siding. Replacing in kind an entire wood feature that is too deteriorated to · repair--if the overall form and detailing are still evident--using the physical evidence to guide the new work. Examples of wood features include a cornice, entablature or balustrade. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Failing to undertake adequate measures to assure the preservation of wood features. Replacing an entire wood feature such as a cornice or wall when repair of the wood and limited replacement of deteriorated or miss- ing parts are appropriate. Using substitute materials for the replacement part that does not convey the visual appearance of the surviving parts of the wood feature or that is physically or chemically incompatible. Removing an entire wood feature that is unrepairable anti not replacing it; or replacing it with a new feature that does not convey the same visual appearance. The following work is highlighted because it represents the particularly complex technical or design aspects of rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns listed above have been addressed. Design for Missing Historic Features Designing and insta!Hng a new wood feature such as a cornice Or doo~ay When the hlstorl~ feature Is comPletelY:':~l~g~?lt rosy: be' an: a~Cil~te restoration using hlStGrl~l,::plCtorial, 'and physical documentation; Creating a false historic appearance because the replaced wood feature is based on insufficient historical, pictorial, and physac a documentation. Introducing a new wood feature that is incompatible in size, scale material, and color. DISTRICT/ NEIGHBORHOOD The relalionship between hisloric bullclings, and streetscape and landscape lea lures within a his toric tlislrict or neighborhood helps to define !he historic character and therefore should always be a parl of !he rehabilitalion plans. Recommended Not Recommended Identifying, retaining, and preserving buildings, and streetscape, and landscape features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the district or neighborhood. Such features can include streets, alleys, paving, walkways, street lights, signs, benches, parks and gardens, and trees. Removing or radically changing those features of tile district neighborhood which are important in tiefining the overall historic character so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Retaining the historic relationship between buildings, and street- scape and landscape features such as a town square comprised of row houses and stores surrounding a communal park or open space. Destroying streetscape and landscape features by widening existing sireels, changing paving material. or introducing inappropriately located new sireels or parking lots. Removing or relocating historic buildings, or features ot the streetscape and landscape, thus destroying the historic relationship between buildings, features and open space. Protecting and maintaining the historic masonry, wood, and archi- tectural metals which comprise building ~nd streetscape features, through appropriate surface treatments such as cleaning, rust removal, limited paint remo *al, and reapplication of protective coating systems; and prote~:ting and maintaining landscape features, including plant material. Failing to provide adequate protection of materials on a cyclical basis so that deterioration of building, streetscape, and landscape features results. Protecting buildings, paving, iron fencing, etc. against arson and vandalism before rehabi'litation work begins by erectin8 protective fencing and installing alarm systems that are keyed into local pro- tection agencies. Permitting buildings to remain unprotected so that windows ,,~e broken; and interior features are damaged. Stripping features from buildings or the streetscape such as wood siding, iron fencing, or tetra cotta balusters: or removing or destroying landscape features, including plant material. 49 DISTI~,iCT/NEIGI IBORI IOOL) (continued) Recommended Evaluating the overall condition of building, slreetscape and land- scape malerials to determine whether more than protection and maintenance are required, that is, if repairs to features will be necessary. Not Recommended Failing to underlake adequate measures to assure the preservation of building, slreetscape, and landscape features. Repairing features of the building, streetscape, or landscape by reinforcin8 the historic materials. Repair will also generally include the replacement in kind--or with a compatible substitute material--of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of features when there are surviving prototypes such as porch balustrades, paving materials, or streetlight standards. Replacing in kind an entire feature of the building, streetscape, or landscape that is too deteriorated to repair--when the overall form and detailing are still evident--using the physical evidence to guide the new work. This could include a storefront, a walkway, or a garden. if using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Replacing an entire feature of the building, streetscape, or land- scape such as a porch, walkway, or streetlight, when repair of materials and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts are appropriate. Using a substitute material for the replacement part that does not convey the visual appearance of the surviving parts of the building. streetscape, or landscape feature or that is physically or chemically incompatible. Removing a feature of the building, streetscape, or landscape that is unrepairable and not replacing it; or replacing it with a new feature that does not convey the same visual appearance. .STRICT/NEIGi IBOi~,t I001) (continued) The |ollowinR work is hiRhlighled because it represenls the parlicularly complex technical or design aspects .f rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns listed above have been addressed. Recomtnended Not Recommett,ted Design for Missing Historic Features Designing and constructing a new feature of the bullcling, streetscape, or landscape When the historic feature Is completely mL~_ing, such as row house steps, a porch, streetlight, or terrace~' It may be a 'restoration based on historical, pictorial, and physical doo, mentation; or be a new design illat is 'compatible with the historic character of the 'district or neighborhood. Designing required new parking sO that'it is as unobtrusive as possible, I.e., on side streets or at the rear of buUdings, "Shared" parking should also be planned so that several businesses can uHlize one parking area as opposed to in~dUCing random, multiple lots. I)~ignln-'and constructing new additions to hlstortc buildings when Fequlred by thenew'use. New woFk should be compatible with the' historic character of the district or neighborhood in terms of size, scale, design, Removing nonsignificant buffclings, additions, or streetscape and landscape feature Which detract from the historic character of the district or the neighborhOod~ I.:/~: !:::/:~-.. :...Z~ Crealing a false historical appearance because the replaced leatuee is based on insullicient historical, pict,tial and physscal tation. Introducing a new building. streetscape or lantlscal,e teatt,re ehat ~.~ out of scale or otherwise inappropriate to the settings hislt~|~ character. e.g., replacing picket tenting v.,ith chain link lent Placing parking facilities directly adjacent to histori~ t~uihhng,, which cause the removal of historic planrings. relocation -t path~ and walkways. or blocking of alleys. Introducing new construction inh~ historic districts that is visually incompatible or that destroys historic relationships wsthm the district or neighborhood. Removing a historic building, buihling feature ,,t landstal,e ,,, streetscape feature that is important in tielining the .vetall hN~,~. character of the district or the neighborhood. 51 Although the work in these sections Is quite often an Important aspect of rehabilitation projects, it is usually not part of the overall process o| preserving character-defining features (maintenance, repair, replacement); rather, such work is assessed for its potential negative impact on the building's historic character. For this reason, particular care must be taken not to obscure, radically change, damage, or destroy, character-defining features in the process of rehabilitation work to meet new use requirements. 52 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE REQUIREMENTS As a part of the new use, it is often necessary to make modifications to a historic building st~ thai it can comply with current health, safety and code requirements. Such work needs to be carefully planned and undertaken so that it does not result in a loss of character-defining spaces. features, and finishes. Recommended Identifying the historic building's character-defining spaces, features, and finishes so that code-required work will not result in their damage or loss. Complying with health and safety code, including seismic codes and barrier-free access requirements, in such a manner that character-defining spaces, features, and finishes are preserved. Working with local code officials to investigate alternative life safe- ty measures or variances available under some codes so that altera- tions and additions to historic buildings can be avoided. Providing barrier-free access through removable or portable, rather than permanent, ramps. Providing seismic reinforcement to a historic building in a manner that avoids damaging the structural system and character-defining features. Upgrading historic stairways and elevators to meet health and safe- ty codes in a manner that assures their preservation, i.e., so that they are not damaged or obscured. Installing sensitively designed fire suppression systems, such as a sprinkler system for wood frame mill buildings, instead of applying fire-r~sistant sheathing to character-defining features. Not Recomme,ded Underlaking code-required alterations to a buihling or site belore identifying those spaces, features, or finishes which are character- defining and must therefore be preserved. Altering, clamaging, or destroying character-defining spaces. features, and finishes while making mc~difications to a building or site !o comply with safety codes. Making changes to historic buildings without first seeking aher- natives to code requirements. Installing permanent ramps that damage or diminish character- defining features. Reinforcing a historic building using measures that damage or destroy character-defining structural and other features. Damaging or obscuring historic stairways and elevators or altering adjacent spaces in the process of doing work to meet code re- quirements, Covering character-defining wood features with fire-resistant sheathing which results in altering their visual appearance. 53 MINUTES IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1998 - 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Lars Anderson, Trudy Day, Frank Gersh, Mike Gunn, Betty Kelly, Doris Malkmus, Michaelanne Widness, Pamela Michaud MEMBERS ABSENT: NODe STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Andrew Matthews OTHERS PRESENT: John Shaw, Brad Houser, Eleanor Steele, Ruedi Kuenzli, Jeff Shabillion, Mary Ann Madden, Kirk Walther, Ted Heald, Richard Wayne CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Malkmus called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEWS: 803 S. Summit Street Kugler said that this certificate of appropriate is for the construction of a new building on the vacant lot recently created on S. Summit Street. He said the first set of plans was filed on July 31, and those plans were forwarded to the certificate review committee of Gunn, Gersh and Michaud. He said that John Shaw was also involved in that review because the Commission requested that someone with architectural experience help with major projects. Kugler said a number of suggestions were made to the applicant, Brad Houser, and the revised plans were submitted and passed out to Commission members. He said that the building is intended to fit with the architectural character of some of the other buildings along Summit Street, and some issues that need to be discussed are the proposed vinyl siding and the fact that the building is sitting on grade rather than on a raised foundation that is found on most of the Summit Street properties. He said the Commission does not typically regulate the application of vinyl siding because one does not need a building permit to apply it, so it does not come before the Commission. Gunn said his concerns with the original plans were that the building was set on the ground instead of on a raised foundation, the absence of a front porch, the chimney was wrapped in siding, the windows had divided lights and were a little wide for historic proportions. He said that the house also appeared a little low to the ground, and the review committee suggested adding height to the ground floor to raise the building up. He said the north building fa.cade had about 20-25 feet without any variations in siding or windows, and the original plan had a shared garage between the two properties that held eight cars and was 80 feet long. (Michaud arrived at 6:40 p.m.) Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 2 Gersh said that he thought the roof was supposed to be similar to surrounding properties, and the proposed roof has no gables, few angles and goes straight back, unlike neighboring roofs. Malkmus asked about the front door materials. Shaw said it was shown as steel. Gunn said the committee discussed the siding options of wood and vinyl siding, as well as a fiber cement material called Hardi plank and Hardi panel. Gersh said his concerns with the revised plans were that they still called for vinyl siding, did not have a foundation showing, had a monolithic roof structure that did not fit with the district and the double garage door faced the street. Kugler said that the garage door standard is that double garage doors are discouraged if they are visible from the public right-of-way. Shaw noted that he is not employed by the Commission or by Houser, and he volunteered his time on this issue. He said it is difficult to see the two doors from the street because the garage is directly behind the main structure. Kelly asked why two-bedroom apartments needed three garages. Kugler said the garage was scaled back from eight spaces to six and divided into two buildings. One will serve the proposed building and one will be for the existing duplex at 803 S. Summit Street. He reminded the Commission that they are only dealing with the proposed design, not the building use. Shaw said six parking spaces are an appropriate number for eight bedrooms. Kugler said that according to the zoning code, Houser needs to provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Malkmus asked if any consideration was given to aligning the garages so one does not face the street. Houser said the way the lot separation was done, the garages could not be put in parallel to the property to prevent losing trees. He said that all the neighborhood garages are turned to face the street, and said that some greenspace was added by having two garage buildings instead of one. Gunn said he thought the revised front porch's appearance and intent was fine, but he wanted construction details clarified to make sure it will be constructed as it is proposed. He said he was concerned that there is no step up to the porch because every house on Summit Street has that, even if it is just a single eight-inch step. He said that Houser responded well to the committee's concerns and adjusted the plan in many respects. Kelly asked what the chimney material was. Shaw said a modified plaster with a stucco finish, and he said that many chimneys on Summit Street are backplastered. Gersh said that they reached a compromise because the original chimney was covered with vinyl. Michaud said that the lack of foundation and vinyl siding were her main concerns. She noted the bay roof above the windows on one side of the roof. Houser said with the roof, they are trying to keep cost conscious, and things that were built in the 1920s are not feasible to build exactly the same today. He said the roof matches the one of the duplex next door. Gersh noted that the new building is supposed to conform to the contributing structures in the historic district, not to the noncontributing buildings. Houser said that they made the garage as small as possible, and the house is built on a slab on grade with no basement because of its intended use of putting his father on the first floor. He said creating a basement for this property would just be creating an expensive storage area. He said that he and Shaw discussed "skirting" to mimic a foundation, but that would change the front elevations and make the house look like a trailer. He showed samples of the proposed vinyl siding, and noted some of the houses in Iowa City that were built with it. He said there would be a three inch lap, and when it is installed it will come across smooth Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 3 like the houses on Summit Street, and it will actually look more uniform over time. He noted that the Hardi plank has not been tested for 20 years like the vinyl siding. He noted that the properties immediately next door to this one on either side have vinyl siding. Malkmus asked about the color combinations for the siding. Houser said he liked a cr~me- colored siding with a white Hardi-plank accent around the windows. He said that there is a proposed six-inch wide band, which will be a painted detail. He said they are proposing single hung, vinyl windows, but they have not selected a brand to use yet. Malkmus asked if the front door would have flush face. Houser said that they are open to suggestions, but it will probably be a fiber door. Public hearing opened. Eleanor Steele, 710 S. Summit Street, said that the Commission needs to carefully consider this item because it is precedent setting. She said this is the first review of a new building to be constructed in a historic district. She said that as a community member, she was only notified of the issue because a Commission member told her about it. She said that she also has no formal right to appeal this issue to the City Council if she does not like the outcome of the Commission's vote. She said that she will be looking at this building for a long time, and has a genuine interest in seeing a quality product come out of it. She said she has 20 years of training and advocacy work in historic preservation. She said she thought the original plan was unacceptable and should have been scrapped while the applicant was educated about the Summit Street Historic District. Steele went through the Secretary of Interior Standards and the local guidelines. She said since the building plans show no foundation, they already have a weakness in conforming to the rest of the historic district. She said she thought the roof was monolithic, and the bay window does little to help it. She said the vertical emphasis is O.K., but not great because the structure is missing a foundation. She said there is not really a porch proposed, but a covered patio, and the entry level does not match those of other properties in the neighborhood. She said she had a problem with the double set of windows by the roof pitch, that it was inappropriate to have a blank fa.cade on the back elevation, and that the structure is not compatible with the other buildings in the neighborhood. She said that the Summit Street neighbors are in the process of having the neighborhood downzoned, and after that is complete a duplex could not be built there. She said she also had reservations about the use of vinyl products in a historic district. Jeff Shabillion, said he thought it was difficult to understand why the Commission would find that vinyl siding is appropriate for a historic district. He said there are grants available from the Friends of Historic Preservation for removing vinyl siding and repainting a structure. He said that vinyl siding is not appropriate for this district. Ruedi Kuenzli, 705 S. Summit Street, said that this is the first application for a new primary structure to be built in a historic district. He noted that when the new lot was proposed the staff report said that this would be an excellent opportunity to demonstrate how to achieve compatible development on an infill property. He felt the entire proposal is inappropriate, and would be disappointed if this is what we get as a result. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 4 Mary Ann Madden, 428 S. Summit Street, said she and the other neighbors are trying to protect the integrity of their neighborhood. She said if the Commission approves this item, they would be allowing something to occur in an area where it should not. She said that she was concerned that the neighbors had no way to appeal a decision, and wanted to have the all the neighbors notified if a property was applying for a certificate of appropriateness. Shaw said that he is not a proponent of vinyl siding, nor is he totally against it. He said it is a reasonable alternative given the economic driving factors of most residential construction and that it mimics the lap siding people are used to seeing. Kirk Walther, 710 S. Summit Street, said that vinyl siding does not belong in the Summit Street neighborhood. Steele explained that when vinyl siding is cut and applied, it must butt up to something. That results in a vertical trim board on the corners of the house. She said that reduces any shadow line, and has technical difficulties in making it look like wood siding. Kuenzli noted the tweaking of the University' s skywalk project, and said that tweaking a project does not always make the results appropriate. He said he was concerned that Houser is comparing his project to his 1960s duplex on one side and the property at 803 S. Summit Street, and both have little to do with the other properties in the neighborhood. Ted Heald, 812 S. Summit Street, said he thought vinyl siding had no place on Summit Street. He said he would like to see some elevation from grade up to a true porch, and said the Commission should set their standards high for infill properties. At the request of Gunn, the Commission decided to leave this issue and review the Certificate of Appropriateness for 414 Brown Street in the interest of time and the applicant' s need to meet another appointment. 414 Brown Street Gunn said that the roof work will not be visible from the street, and might not be visible from the ground around the property. He said the roof is currently flat, and the work would put pitch where the roof is flat by putting in a series of hip roofs. This would affect the old additions to the house, not the historic building itself, so water does not stand and ruin the building anymore. Public discussion opened. Richard Wayne, said that this would tie the two pitched roofs together. He said currently the water does not run off, it just stands there and causes damage. He said the shingles will be a gray color and whatever is closest to a weathered, wooden material. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Day moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 414 Brown Street. Gunn seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 5 Day moved to amend her motion to include "subject to review of plans submitted for a building permit to ensure compatibility with what was presented at the Commission meeting". Gunn seconded the amendment. The amendment carried by a vote of 8-0. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0, Members went back to the certificate of appropriateness for 803 S. Summit Street. Public discussion closed. Anderson noted that the Secretary of Interior Standards allow for economic and technical feasibility, and asked about cost differentials between wood and vinyl siding. Gunn said he priced the different siding options at Nagle lumber, and found that the vinyl siding would cost about $3,500 applied, the Hardi panel would cost $8,250 applied and the redwood material would cost about ~12,000, $1,500 to apply and another $3,500 to paint. Anderson asked what the cost of adding the foundation would be. Kelly said while those statements are justified, the Summit Street historic district has been in existence for several years, and the decision should not totally rest on economic feasibility. Anderson asked if the Commission told Houser he could not use vinyl siding, could he add vinyl siding at a later date. Kugler said yes. He said vinyl siding is something the Commission has discouraged in the past, but since it does not require a building permit the Commission has no say over it. He said he spoke with Ralph Christian from the State Historical Society of Iowa, who said they usually do not allow vinyl siding when dealing with historical buildings through the Section 106 program, but they would rarely deal with a new building. He said when it is allowed, some extraordinary factors are present, and they do regulate the colors used. Kugler said he also spoke with Judy McClure, an architect with the State Historical Society, who said vinyl siding should be a local decision. Gersh said that the Secretary of Interior Standards state that new construction and additions in historic districts should use materials compatible with other buildings in the district. Anderson said such regulation may make homeowners hesitant to support future historic districts if there will be extra cost to them. He said there has to be a balance, and he did not think that the applicant could cost-effectively address every issue brought up by the Commission. Gunn said he thought the Summit Street and Woodlawn districts are different than the proposed Longfellow district will be. He said that what they decide tonight regarding vinyl siding might not be the plan for the whole City. For example, putting vinyl siding on a house in the Summit Street district is noticeable, but putting siding on a house in the Longfellow district where a lot of the other houses already have siding might not be as noticeable. Gersh said a homeowner who does not have much money might want to put siding on, but this is a rental property that is designed to make money. Malkmus said that issue is not under the Commission's pervue, and the Commission needs to remember that they are in place to protect the historic heritage of the entire district. Kugler said there is a recommendation in the Commission's historic preservation plan to look at incorporating an economic hardship provision, but the Commission has not yet followed through on that recommendation. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 6 Gunn said that vinyl siding could be done to mimic wood. He said if the Commission could, they should not allow the older homes in the district to be covered in vinyl siding. He said about one-third of the older homes on Summit Street are already sided in different materials. He said he did not think this would set a precedent that the Commission had to take all over town; this is an infill property in a particular historic district. Kelly said that in 50 years a vinyl-sided home might fit into a historic district filled with vinyl-sided homes, but it does not fit in the Summit Street district. Michaud asked if there had been technological improvement with the vinyl window treatments. Shaw said it would never look like wood. Day said that she did not think the vinyl siding was the only point of discussion; that there are other issues with the duplex that need to be discussed. Malkmus said she thought the Commission needed to make a clear decision regarding vinyl siding, and present that to Houser. Widness said she did not like vinyl siding in general, and specifically not in the Summit Street district. She said she thought the Summit Street district is a unique one, and the Commission needs to have very high standards for this first infill property. She said if she was going to consider vinyl siding for a project, she would probably consider the material Houser has proposed, but not for something that is going on Summit Street. Day said there are beautiful homes with vinyl siding, but the Commission cannot get away from the fact that this is a precedent setting issue. She said main considerations for her were two things, first what precedent does the Commission want to set in the Summit Street district, and second that she does not want their decisions to constantly be anti- growth, anti-good business and good economics for the City. She said the Commission needs to understand that their decisions have an economic repercussion. She said she is opposed to vinyl siding in this case. Kelly said she thought vinyl siding looks great on a $400,000 house in a modern addition, but this is not a modern addition. She said the Commission needs to be very careful with this decision because this is the first infill being put into a historic district, and it will set a precedent. She said she is opposed to vinyl siding. Michaud agreed. Malkmus said in terms of economics, she thought it was made very clear to Houser when he received the subdivision that his house would be held to high standards, and this would not be a normal, typical subdivision, it is in a historic district, and anything that is done has to reflect especially the historic character. She said for that reason, she is willing to say that vinyl siding as a material is not appropriate in the Summit Street district because the district' s age is generally pre-turn of the century. She said that the Commission needs to follow through with the materials, as well as the style as much as possible. She asked Houser if he was planning to vinyl clad the window trim. Houser said no, they would use the Hardi plank around the windows. Houser said that one thing that needs to be addressed is the cost consideration because that means a big difference for their project and what they can do. He noted that there are a number of properties on Summit Street with siding. Malkmus said that the Commission' s intent is to see houses in a historic district restored to more original materials, and while they are accounting for how hard this might make the project for Houser, they have a duty to the larger district. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 7 Anderson said that Commission members could look at the proposed siding, the porch and the roof, and probably agree that they are not the best ideas and that members would like to see them changed. He said he thought the Commission needed to look at the project as a whole, and if they decide that all three are not appropriate they need to look at the big picture. He said the whole idea is to come up with a compromise. Kelly disagreed, and said she did not think the Commission had to compromise with this situation. Anderson said he was uncomfortable making a decision about vinyl siding by itself. He said that if the Commission decides that vinyl siding in the Summit Street district in not appropriate, that should not necessarily be their decision for all historic districts in Iowa City. Kelly said that the Commission' s decision is to make compatible infill in each district. Members took a straw poll vote about who would turn down the existing plans only on the basis of the proposed vinyl siding. The vote was 8-0. Gersh suggested that Houser go back to the d~awing board and present another set of plans to the Commission. Gunn said that the Commission needs to give Houser some clear direction as to what they want changed. Houser said he tried to adjust the second set of plans to address the review committee' s concerns. He said that this is not a situation where everybody is going to have their way. He noted the economic situation, and said that needs to be considered. He said that while the Council stated this infill would be held to high standards, they also said that this was not supposed to be something that hindered building. He said that they are trying to make something that is not exactly the same as the neighborhood, but that is an acceptable compromise by both parties. He said he felt that they have done a very good job with that. He said the requests to not use vinyl siding, to change the roof and add a foundation were very unreasonable costs, which would add up to $30,000-50,000 extra on the project. He said that they are trying to make a project that is compatible with the neighborhood, but they are also trying to use the technology available today. He said the wood siding used 80 years ago is not better, and the vinyl siding would last longer than the wood. Steele said that she knew she was out of order, but since the Commission is taking comments from Shaw and Houser, and since this is her last opportunity to speak on this issue, she felt the need to speak. She said that she hoped she could make it clear that what was presented to the Commission was a set of plans that showed no knowledge of what was required of a building built in the Summit Street historic district. She said what came out of that was something based on the original plan. She noted that the local guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards call for a structure that is not based on those original plans, so she thought the Commission could not take those original plans and tweak them to a degree that becomes acceptable because it is missing a foundation. She said that economics are part of the Secretary of Interior Standards because those standards were developed for a specific other body of preservationists. She said that economics have to do with the economic feasibility for the owner-occupant regarding additions and changes to a structure. She said that standard does not apply to the development of a property in a district that does not have those economic concerns, so it is not applicable in this case. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 8 Malkmus asked if Houser had considered putting frost footings down and pouring a slab between them. Houser said they could do that, but it would only bring the structure up four to six inches. Malkmus said that it could be brought up higher. Houser said yes, but that would result in a higher cost for no purpose. Gunn said the Commission needed to clarify how much elevation they wanted. He said he was concerned with the lack of a step up to the porch and the lack of a foundation. He said in the Summit Street historic district, the newer properties have as little as six or seven inches of step and the older structures have anywhere from 13 inches to three-and-a-half feet up to the porch. He said he thought a foot was enough elevation for a porch, even though it was not up to the neighborhood standard. Malkmus asked Houser if he could arrange the front of the house to have a poured slab that was out of the ground 12 inches or higher. Shaw said that was structurally possible, and if Houser was willing to do that, he thought it would be an improvement to how the structure looks. Malkmus said that would mean that the sill of the house had to be 12 inches above grade or higher in the front when seen from the street. Houser said that is an area of potential compromise. Malkmus said she sensed that the raise'd foundation was a bottom-line requirement. Houser said he did not know if there could be a bottom-line because things could not just be one way, there had to be something that worked with both sides. Malkmus said that the Commission could create elaborate conditions that would cost Houser much more money, and the Commission already feels like they are only requiring items they feel are essential. Gunn asked about the garage elevation, and if Houser was going to take the driveway down close to the existing terrain or bring in fill. He noted that the duplex slopes 24 inches from east to west, so there is also an issue of fill or cut. Houser said he would look at that, but this is a give and take situation. He said that if he has to spend ~8,000 more to paint something, he cannot do this. Malkmus asked if the front of the house if raised on a frost footing would the back of the house be several feet above the natural grade. Gunn said yes. He said if you go into a sloped property and bulldoze it into a flat plain to build on, it affects the look more than the siding in his opinion. Kelly said the infill cannot mimic the current buildings in the district, but it can be compatible. Gunn said he thought the garages have to be considerably lower than the house. Houser said the problem will be water draining between the garages. Malkmus said that in the older houses the porches are above grade, and told Houser that is what they would like him to achieve that with this project. Shaw noted that the sidewalk on Summit Street is higher than the ground the house is built on. Houser said that they are dealing with water run-off on their neighbor's property. Malkmus said the Commission is not asking Houser to elevate the lot, they are asking him to elevate the house. Houser said he understood that, but there would have to be a little bit of both. Shaw said that they cannot grade away from the area where the house will be built to get exposure, so some fill will have to be brought in to bring the floor up. Kugler reminded the Commission of their options to 1) accept the plans as submitted and approve the certificate of appropriateness, 2) approve the certificate with conditions if the Commission feels the items can be handled in that manner, 3) defer the item until the applicant resubmits plans, but the applicant should indicate his willingness to do so, or 4) deny the certificate with specific reasons why the Commission feels the item cannot be Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 9 approved. He read the following items as a list of concerns that were mentioned with regard to the proposed plans: the need for a break on the north side of the roofline, the material of the front door, painting the wood on back deck and stair rail, appropriateness of the piece of wood trim around the exterior of the stucco chimney, lack of dimensions of the trim around the windows or the cornerboards on the plans, window above the front porch roof as the roof goes into the window trim, lack of dimensions for the column widths, the need for a raised foundation, and the blank fa.cade on the back wall. He said that if the Commission defers this item, they should be ready to schedule a special meeting to revisit it. He said in the past the Commission has always taken the approach that they do not want to delay projects, and with this project they do not want to give the appearance that they are trying to do so intentionally, given the pending Summit Street rezoning. Gersh said he thought the Commission should defer the item to another meeting, and have the applicant address those issues. Widness asked why the windows were three different sizes. Shaw said that is very common in the district. Houser said that the reason there is no window on the back fa.cade, because he would have to take a window off the south side, which is the kitchen, to put on there. He said that the stove and refrigerator are located on the inside of that back wall, and one of them would have to be moved to place a window there. Gunn said the back wall is only 10 feet, eight inches wide, so it is not that large of an expanse without having a window. MalkmuS said that she was not as concerned with windows on the rear elevation. Michaud said her kitchen has six doors and a window, so she could understand the need for a solid wall. Widness asked if the garage door panels were something seen on other Summit Street garages. Houser said he had not addressed that yet. Widness said it struck her as something that looked modern. Houser said that they would use an aluminum product or something along those lines. Michaud said she thought a flat panel might look more historic. Kugler said the Commission has dealt with that issue in the past based on visibility of the garage door. Malkmus asked how Commission members felt about allowing the garages to be sided in vinyl. She said she personally would allow it because the garage is far enough away from the street. Kelly asked why the garages' siding should be different than the house. Malkmus said economics because the two garages are large in size, and the Commission did permit a vinyl-sided garage next door to this property. Gunn said that he did not have an objection to vinyl siding on the garage. Kugler said there have been a couple of other situations on Summit Street where vinyl siding was proposed, and the Commission required a type of hardboard siding. Shaw said he thought the Commission needed to be consistent with what is appropriate for the district. Malkmus said she would withdraw her question. Anderson said the Commission should make it clear to Houser what items on the list that Kugler read are absolutely necessary for the Commission to approve the plans. Malkmus said the six-inch cornerboards are easy to meet. Kugler said the scale of the plan illustrates six inches, but there is nothing in writing on the plan to show that. Gunn asked if four inches for window trim and cornerboard was more standard. Houser said he would rather not specify a number of inches because the Hardi plank comes pre-primed and he would Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 10 rather have the flexibility of four or six inches. Malkmus asked if Houser would be willing to specify wrapped posts on the front porch that are 10 inches on the bottom and eight inches on the top part, that the back porch would be painted to match the trim on the house, that the chimney will not include cornerboards on the plans. He said he would have no problem with that. Shaw said the engaged column of the porch should be pulled back in to the face so only an inch-and-a-half would be sticking out. Houser said that would be fine. Kugler said another concern was the soffitt materials, and if the Commission would be saying yes or no to vinyl on those. He said there is a vinyl product with the appearance of beadboard that could be a possibility. Houser said that he used an aluminum product on his house because the vinyl product expands and contracts, so he would like to use the aluminum product on the soffitts. Malkmus asked if Houser would get a bead design, and if it would run perpendicular to the rafter tails. Houser said yes. Malkmus asked about the doors. Shaw said he had two wooden doors that Houser could have. Malkmus asked about the roof. Kugler said it was suggested to Houser to add a cross gable to break up the north fa.cade or a hip roof in the back. He said there are plans for vaulted ceilings in the upper rooms, which would have caused problems. Shaw read Section B guidelines, number 1, general A. "The design of new structures need not mimic historical styles. The intent of these guidelines to encourage creativity and design, including contemporary styles. "He said the handling of the gable ends on the front is very contemporary. Gunn said at the review committee meeting he said that this detail exists only on a side elevation on Summit Street. He said he was in error because none of this detail faces Summit Street, although he did not find the detail incompatible. Kugler noted that Shaw is not a Commission member, and was not appointed by the Commission to work on this project. He said that Shaw was approached by staff to assist in the review given the request by the Commission at its last meeting. Shaw volunteered his time to do so, even though he was approached about being hired Kugler said in this situation he should be considered a consultant of the Commission and it is appropriate for him to be involved in the discussion. Gersh said that the guidelines are to encourage creativity, and asked if making the roof go straight back was creativity or was it an attempt to make things easier and cheaper. Steele said that often times when discussing creativity, the guideline can be abused. She said roofline is not a creativity issue in this case. Michaud asked why the roof edges flange out. She said that it might save a little to square those off and have a little gable instead. Kelly said Houser has returns on them. Malkmus asked Commission members how much objection they had to the roof as it is proposed. She asked Houser if there was a vaulted ceiling. Houser said that they are going to vault the entire upstairs. Gersh said he could still do that with a gable coming out to the side, it would just have to go up higher. Malkmus suggested creating a facade gable. Houser said it would not have any purpose there. Michaud said it could provide a skylight. Malkmus said in terms of roofing, it is exactly the same materials. Gersh said the purpose is to make the roof compatible. Houser said he could do some of these things, but he could not do everything the Commission wanted him to. Gunn said the siding, the gable addition and raising the house would be the biggest expenses. Gersh said that he thought economics in that sense were not relevant because it Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 11 is always possible to do something cheaper. He said the issue is if the property is going to fit in with the neighborhood. Gunn said he was not willing to say that economics was not an issue. Malkmus asked members to vote in a straw poll if they would approve the plans if the foundation and the siding were fixed, and the roof was left as proposed. The vote was 7- 1, with Gersh voting no. MOTION: Day moved to defer the certificate of appropriateness for 803 S. Summit Street. Gersh seconded the motion. Anderson asked when the special meeting would be. Kugler said it could be held on Monday, August 17, 1998, if Houser approved. Houser said the only issues remaining are the siding and the foundation. Malkmus said the Commission would insist that the foundation show an exposure not less than 12 inches in the front of the house. She said they would have to approve wood, hardboard or Hardi board at this meeting for the siding. Shaw said Hardi board should actually be referred to as fiber cement siding. Michaud said she has never seen the fiber cement siding on a house or a photograph of it on a house, so she could not see urging someone to put something totally new on a house that is supposed to look historic. Kugler said he has seen its pictures of use, and to his eye it looks wood-like. He said it does not have the extra piece of trim around the windows and there is relief between the windows and the siding. Shaw said the fiber cement siding applies like wood, and once it is painted it is virtually indistinguishable. Houser said the fiber cement siding comes pre-primed, but it needs to be painted. Houser said he wanted it understood that the Commission was setting a precedent that they would not vinyl allow siding on any structure in the district, not just his building. Widness noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over existing houses applying vinyl siding. Gunn said if it not allowed with this item, the Commission should make changes so it is not allowed on other historic buildings in this district. Shaw said that is a code issue. Kugler noted that the applicant can appeal any decision the Commission makes to the City Council. Kuenzli said the fiber cement siding looks less like wood. Gunn said he thought the fiber cement siding looked more like wood than the vinyl siding. Widness asked if Commission members could see the fiber cement siding on a house because she did not feel comfortable approving something she had never seen. Gersh said the Commission did not have to approve the fiber cement siding. Shaw said he had never seen it on a house, but he heard from three people that said it appeared very close to wood. Kugler said after speaking with Shaw, the material he described earlier was not fiber cement siding, but a different material called hardboard. Shaw said hardboard was approved for two secondary structures on Summit Street. Malkmus said she thought the Commission was reluctant to approve the fiber cement siding at this meeting, and asked Houser how that affected his time constraints. Houser said it all comes down to a feasibility issue. Malkmus asked if that would affect Houser' s ability to get the duplex in before the area is rezoned. Kugler said the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider the rezoning item at their meeting on Thursday, August 20, Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 12 1998. If the item passes through that Commission at that time, it will go on to City Council, and they are setting a public hearing at their first September meeting. It would be at that time that any new building permit would need to comply with both zoning requirements, so a duplex would not be allowed. Kugler said he thought that Houser would need to have his permit in hand and substantial construction completed by that time. Malkmus said that the Commission would approve everything as stated with wood siding, but they are not in a position to approve the fiber cement siding. Kugler said the soonest the special meeting could be held is Monday, but Houser would have to resubmit his plans and give the Commission time to look at them. Houser said he did not think he needed to change the plans at this point because he had already agreed to everything except for the siding, and he did not know what the Commission expected him to do about that. Malkmus said that if Houser submits plans stating that he will use the fiber cement siding, it will be the Commission' s job to go out and gather information and make a decision whether they will approve it in a historic district. Houser said the building would be about a ~120,000 project, and the Commission wants him to spend ~20,000 on wood. He said that would limit the project, and he did not think that was fair. He said he was bending over backwards to make accommodations for the Commission, and now they are asking for something else. He said he did not think that was fair. Malkmus said the Commission needs time to evaluate this plan, and at that time they may or may not approve its use in a historic district. Gersh noted that there is a motion on the table to defer this item and reconsider it when new plans are submitted. Kugle.r said the Commission does not have a specific time limit for action as stated in the ordinance, but usually things are geared toward assuring that an application is handled in a expeditious manner. He said there has always been a concern about historic preservation slowing down the building process. He said if the Commission wants to defer the item, the safe thing to do would be to have the applicant agree and say he will bring back plans that will address these items. He said if the applicant does not agree, Commission members need to decide if they are ready to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions or deny it based on a list of deficiencies. Malkmus asked Houser if he would submit revised plans for a special meeting specifying the small changes previously listed, the foundation and the type of siding proposed. Houser said his options are one of two, and that is not fair. He said the Commission is getting everything they want, and that is not fair. Kugler said the regulations for historic districts are not set up to require compromise but rather to ensure compatibility. Houser said it comes down to a consideration of cost, and the Commission wants him to spend one-fifth of the house' s total cost for one piece, and that is not fair. Malkmus said the law is clear in that the owner does not have the right to the highest use of their property; that they have a right to a reasonable use. She said in a historic district what is reasonable is established by the surrounding properties, not by the owner' s finances. Houser said reasonable, but not inhibiting them and what they want to do. He said this was not supposed to be an unreasonable request, and the Council told him that when they approved the subdivision. Kugler asked if Houser thought the fiber cement siding was reasonable. Houser said yes, but the Commission is telling him that is not possible. Kugler said the Commission is telling him that they are not familiar with the fiber cement siding, and they would like to go out Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 13 and see some examples before they approve it. He said members are asking for a deferral so the items discussed can be addressed on Houser' s plans, and they have time to go look at the fiber cement siding. Houser asked why he had to change his plans if the Commission is going to look at the material. Kugler said he thought it was cleaner if the plans specified the changes discussed at the meeting, so the building officials can tell what is required when they are looking at the plans. He said that the Commission did not need the plans, and could approve the item with conditions if they chose to. Malkmus said in light of House( s not resubmitting plans, the Commission' s motion will include intending to look at the fiber cement siding and to issue or deny the present plans with wood. Malkmus asked Houser if he would accept a plan that used wood. Houser said no because redwood is cost prohibitive. He said he has not priced siding for the house, but he said he knows that redwood is cost prohibitive because he has priced it for other projects. Kugler said a deferral until the special meeting next week would give Houser time to investigate those prices, and said he could resubmit plans that meet the other conditions if he chose to. Malkmus asked if it would be easier for Kugler to give Houser a list of the discussed changes for the plans he will submit to the building department. Houser said yes, as long as there are no other changes to them. Houser asked if he would need to change the window above the porch roof that was mentioned earlier. Malkmus said the window looks like it is touching the trim, and said she did not think that was so unusual. Kugler said he has pictures of examples that used a smaller window in that area, but they are probably looking at a closet or bathroom window and not a living room window like this one is. Gunn said that he thought Houser would try to frame the porch in such a way that it did not interfere with the window because it is harder to butt up to a window than not to. Gersh said he thought the Commission should specify. Kugler said if the windows are going to get any shorter, they should also deal with width to keep the proportions consistent. (Michaud left at 8:32 p.m.) The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. Kugler said that he would gather the addresses of houses that had fiber cement siding, call Commission members with those addresses, and the Commission would meet on Monday night at 5 p.m. He noted that the siding issue is the only outstanding item. (Anderson left the meeting at 8:37 p.m.) Kugler asked members to go over the list of items that needed to be changed on the plans again. They said the items are following: at least a 12-inch exposed foundation, a wood front door patterned with a window, a minimum corner trim width of four inches, a column width of 10 and eight inches, no trim around the corners of the chimney, use of material with the appearance of beadboard on the soffits, a four-inch to five-inch lap width on the siding material used, a flush garage door and painting the back deck and railing. Historic Preservation Commission August 13, 1998 Page 14 Gersh said he thought the roof should still be on the list. Members voted 5-1, with Gersh voting no, in a straw poll to not include the roof in the list of directions. Members decided to save the remaining agenda items for a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Day moved to adjourn the meeting. Gersh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Traci Wagner. ppdadmin\mins\hpcB-13.doc MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1998 - 5:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lars Anderson, Trudy Day, Frank Gersh, Mike Gunn, Betty Kelly, Doris Malkmus, Pam Michaud, Michaelanne Widness MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Sarah Holecek CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Malkmus called the meeting to order at 5:09 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 803 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET: Malkmus said this is a continuation of a lengthy discussion from the last regular meeting. She said this discussion would consist of specifically reviewing the Commission's recommendations to Brad Houser and his revised submissions to the Commission in terms of a house for 803 South Summit Street. Kugler said he distributed a copy of a memo to Commission members that he had given to Houser, listing the conditions that were discussed at the last meeting. Kugler stated that the applicant did submit a revised set of plans this evening, but he had not yet had a chance to examine them. Kugler suggested that if these conditions are still what the Commission is looking for, that the Commission still approve the application subject to these conditions. He said some of the conditions may have been addressed on the revised plans, but he did not know for sure. Kugler said that if the Commission does intend to approve a certificate, it should make sure that the conditions in the memo are incorporated into the motion. Kugler said he provided Commission members with examples of some properties in Iowa City as well as surrounding areas that made use of the fiber cement material that has been discussed, and he hoped Commission members had a chance to take a look at those properties. He said that the main question that was not answered at the last meeting was whether or not the Commission would approve that material as an alternative to wood siding. Kugler said there seemed to be a consensus on Thursday that vinyl siding was not going to be approved as part of this application and that the Commission felt these conditions were important. He said that if the applicant has any comments to make about the changes or the changes made to the plan, this would be the time to do so. Brad Houser, said the revised plan provides the twelve inches of exposed foundation as shown on the plan, and changed the door to a wood door with windows. Houser said he didn't know what the doors offered by John Shaw look like. Houser said they added painted rails and spindles on the back stairs and took the corner boards off the chimney. He said the trim around the windows and coroner boards are six inches on the plan. Houser said that was basically it, and this addresses everything except the wood versus the Hardi-ptank (fiber cement). He said the biggest difference there is the cost consideration. Houser said it is $310 a square for red wood siding, which means he would end up by the time he does corners there around $30,000 for the building. It would be about $10,000-$12,000 for the Hardi-plank. Malkmus said Houser mentions shaker siding on the front space above in the gable end. Houser replied you can get that in Hardi-plank Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 2 too. Malkmus asked if they have a standard material or if it would have to be individually cut. Houser responded that they have a fish scale-type product, and it will be a square shape. Malkmus said she thought what Houser was passing around before was vinyl. Houser said yes; they had originally requested to use the vinyl. Widness said, regarding the garage doors, she assumed Houser would do something about the panel. Houser said he did not change the elevations for the garages. He said the memo specifies a flat panel there and clarified that it should flat. She asked him if he would do a flat door. Houser said he would rather do an insulated door for heating purposes. John Shaw asked Houser if he would heat the garages there, being detached. Housing said he would like to have that option. Malkmus asked Houser what he would make the front porch deck out of and if it would be resting on concrete or if it would have a wood finish. Houser said it would probably be concrete. Malkmus said she meant the deck of the porch. Houser asked if she meant the stoop, and Malkmus said yes. Houser said concrete. Malkmus said she keeps thinking about what it will look like. Houser said at the last meeting a list was agreed upon and said it was agreed that we aren't going to add any items to this list after what was talked about. Michaud asked, out of curiosity, if the Hardi-plank would be $10,000 to $12,000 for the duplex or did that include the garages. Houser said that includes the garages. He said that in the Hardi- plank he can get by with buying it pre-primed but still as every article states, that it should be primed again before it is painted. He said but he thought he could cut some costs and use just paint instead of having to prime, like lap siding has to be primed and painted and has to have at least one coat of each. Michaud said the Commission was given an article on Hardi-plank but does not have a track record on it. She said Houser would know more about that and go on his own advice. Michaud said she did look at the example buildings, and they looked good. Houser said redwood is not feasible anymore and technology has changed. He said this is not a hard product. He said it all depends on how moist the wood is when sold anymore, and the woods are cut a lot faster and shipped out a lot quicker than they were 20 years ago, when they had more time to dry and were shipped more to local areas. Houser said if it is moist at all it is going to blister and peel. He said fiber cement would not because it is pre-primed right in the factory before it ever gets out in the elements. Michaud asked Houser if he will be able to use two colors on the house. Houser said he did not know what he is going to do at this point. He said it will all depend on where he ends up for costs. Houser said that is the advantage of vinyl siding; he can use multiple colors without any extra costs to him. Michaud said she knew the windows were specified to be vinyl and asked if they would have storms on them. Houser responded that they are combination and thermal, doublepane a no storms. Michaud asked if they would be made distinct, or a darker color from the siding. Houser said they are planning on white and are going to use white trim all the way down the windows and trim. He said he likes a cream color for the house. Houser said you can't get a vinyl window in a dark color. He said he has not found it in dark, only in white or tan. He said he can't use dark anyway because of his interior d~cor. Kugler said there is one other piece of information he had intended to give Commission members. He said the City Attorney' s Office has requested that in making the motion or in discussion involving the vinyl siding, the Commission articulate clearly the reasons that the Commission is not Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 3 approving the vinyl siding and clearly articulate why this other material, should the Commission find it acceptable, is appropriate. Malkmus said she did not see it specified but knew it had been discussed and asked what the soffit material would be. Houser said they would either use the Hardi-plank or, as the Commission had requested, would look at a beaded soffit. He said he has not yet had a chance to look at other houses. He said some will have the flat surface, or they will have beaded. Malkmus said she thought that, typically on a house of this style with this large of an overhang, one would see at least a groove or a beaded surface. She said, as far as she was concerned, Houser could use either one, but she would like to see something that is not plywood in appearance. Malkmus said if it were a narrow soffit, then one might see a board, historically, because boards were that width. She said she believed that when it was wider than the width of a board, you usually saw some evidence that it is a tongue in groove material. She said the Commission would like to see the softits looking like a tongue in groove or a beaded. John Shaw, said he thought something needed to be clarified here. He said the only synthetic beaded material he was familiar with that actually looks like ceiling bead is a vinyl product. Shaw said the Commission needs to be clear to Houser whether it will allow a vinyl product on the softits or not because his choice is going to be vinyl or wood. Shaw said aluminum would have some lines indicating that they would essentially be v-grooves rather than a beaded appearance, so that the Commission needs to be clear in what it is asking for. Malkmus asked Houser if he were doing this with Hardi-plank if he would be using the 5/16 sheeting without any grooving or is he saying that he can make Hardi-plank look like soffit. Houser said he would prefer to make it flat. Malkmus asked about the overhang projection. Houser said he believes it is a two-foot overhang. Malkmus asked what Commission members thought about this; she said they are pretty important because you can really see softits. Malkmus said this was going to be a horizontal soffit, rather than being just laid under the tails of the rafters. Malkmus said she believed if that is done in 24 inches with the solid wood, it would be out of character with the house. She asked Commission members if they wanted to allow aluminum bead groove or a beaded vinyl, as Shaw had specified these as the only two options. Day said she thought the Commission said at the last meeting that it would allow beaded vinyl. Gersh said it would be kind of contradictory if the Commission were not going to allow vinyl siding on the house, to allow vinyl there. Malkmus said the Commission has an option with the siding but does not have a viable option with the soffit. Gersh said wood is a viable option. He said it is not for the whole house and therefore not that expensive. Day asked how they would match if you have the Hardi-plank one color, the window in another color and another material, and then the softits a third color. She said if they are not by the same manufacturer, they won't be the same color. Houser said the Hardi-plank is painted so that it can be matched to whatever. Public discussion: Donald Macfarlane, 620 South Summit Street, said that a great deal of what the Commission is discussing escaped those listening because they do not have the plans in front of them but what he perceives here is compromise. He said it is not at all clear to him why there is compromise here. Macfarlane said the Commission is now setting a standard for an historic district, and he thinks that standard needs to be set. Macfarlane stated that the reason he says that is because Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 4 when you are dealing with an existing house and an applicant who lives in the house and has financial restraints, etc., then the spirit of compromise is very appropriate. Macfarlane said that when you are dealing with new construction being built by an out-of-town landlord, it now gets down to the pure nature of the historic district. He said that when he hears vinyl windows, aluminum siding, and something other than wood siding, what he is hearing is that the standards are now being lowered - that he no longer lives in an historic district but lives in the plastic district, in the vinyl district. Macfarlane said he does not think this is appropriate and actually does not think that Brad thinks it is appropriate either. He said the standard to actually look at is set by the house at 802, the restored house on Bowery and Summit Street which has been done quite beautifully. Macfarlane said that is the kind of building standard that the Commission should set. He said if they don' t set that standard, then the Commission has just lost its guts. Macfarlane said the right thing to do is to tell the applicant what the minimum standard is, and that is the standard. He said the standard, as far as he is concerned, is the standard on the street. Macfarlane said those on the Commission all know what that standard is and asked why they were compromising. He asked why they don't stand up and vote for what they believe in, which is to ask Brad to put a beautiful house there. Macfarlane said if he doesn't, it's very simple: vote no. Eleanor Steele, 710 South Summit Street, said she was a little concerned about the discussion related to the cost issues. She said if you are going to get into the issue of cost without having a hardship clause in the ordinance, that is very questionable% Steele says that since there seems to be a cost issue in the consideration regarding material, she would like to enter into that discussion. Steele said she found out some things regarding the cost that are fairly interesting. She said Houser has stated that the duplex will cost $120,000 to build. Steele said that is an average cost per square foot of $59.40. She said that anyone who has done an addition recently knows that that is a very, very low construction cost. Steele said she spoke to some local builders and architects to get an idea of what they thought of that cost. She said a local architect told her that average local building costs are probably more in line with $130 per square foot or more. Steele said she spoke to a builder who is known for doing affordable housing. She said that builder averages out costs at $90 to $130 per square foot. Steele stated that a second builder she spoke to said you would need to spend over $100 per square foot to build in this community. She said the City Inspector, having heard those costs cited by the architect and the two developers said that he did not have specific figures to quote, but he believed that over $100 was a realistic figure. Steele said the cost of this building is therefore at least 40% less than what you see on average. She said that, given that, to discuss lower cost methods of building, such as vinyl softits, which she did not think were open for discussion anymore and said she could review the minutes later and hoped the Commission was clear about that, and to discuss materials other than wood for siding, really shouldn' t figure into the discussion here because this is such a low cost building. Steele said there is also the issue of the cost of the lot. She said that ordinarily, you would spend quite a bit of money for a lot to build on in this town, perhaps $40,000. She said he spent in fees to the City between $570 and $980 to subdivide this lot and in addition may have had consulting fees, such as engineering fees, but spent nowhere close to $40,000 that a lot like this is to be valued at. Steele said Houser's expenses are extremely low, and he is talking about a $20,000 difference between a soft siding material and a wood siding material, which she personally does not see as Historic Preservation Commission August t 7, 1998 Page 5 lacking feasibility since she herself had to replace a third of the siding on her house with redwood siding. She said she found it feasible, and it was not a particularly valuable property. Steele said she really cannot see why the Commission is discussing materials that are not harmonious, not compatible, and not appropriate for a building within the Summit Street Historic District, especially since the building costs are so low. Malkmus asked Houser to estimate the labor costs. Houser replied that he has not factored anything in, and when he quoted the $120,000 that doesn't include the land or any of the appliances or things like that. The garage is not included because it is not an attached garage. Malkmus asked if it included labor for putting on siding. Houser said yes, but it doesn't count general fees or the land cost. He said the land cost is really arbitrary and does not make any difference. Houser said that what they have spent on land should not matter in this discussion. Steele said her understanding is that Houser is saying that the figure he is reporting to the building inspection department for building costs is $120,000. Shaw said Steele should in fairness note that those average costs are generally going to include the cost of land. Steele said the figures she was using were without land. Henry Madden, 428 South Summit Street, said this whole thing bothers him greatly, and perhaps the Commission does not have any control of it, but this is the second time in the last couple of months that the neighbors have been before the Commission. He said that he presumes that because these people are on the Commission, they are interested in historic preservation. Madden said he did not think members would spend their time here unless they were, and yet they voted for the addition to the 621 property, which completely destroyed the concept. He said that here the Commission might be between a rock and a hard place because this zoning allows a duplex. He said that all over Iowa City we see the housing deteriorate downward and we see 12 kids living in a home that should be for two or three, and cars parked all over the place, and blaring radios. Madden asked if there were no place that has any restriction that would preserve the neighborhood for families. He asked if there is nothing left in Iowa City. Madden said here goes another house where there has been four bedrooms, and each one will have three kids in them. He said it is within walking distance of the University, and Houser will be able to get a better price for his rooms because it would be living in a nice historic district. Madden said that all of the neighbors contribute and upgrade their houses so that he can buy a piece of property, slice it in half, put a duplex in there, and rent it out to twelve students. He said he didn't understand why Commission members spent their time on this unless they are interested in preserving historic areas, historic neighborhoods. Madden said it tears him up to think that maybe, yes, we should go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said that maybe you (the Commission) should be drawing better restrictions and presenting to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and saying that we don't want to argue about these things every month, when some guy comes in and buys a cheap lot. Madden asked what if the Champions next door to him decided to cut off the lot next to them because it is fairly narrow and decided to build a duplex there and make a lot of money off of it. He said he did not think that is the intent of an historic neighborhood. John Shaw, said he would readily admit that he had a close, recent association with the Historic Preservation Commission, but as a member of the public, he was tired of hearing the Commission savaged about the property at 621 South Summit Street. He said this Commission was placed in Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 6 a position where it was being told by the legal counsel of the City that it had very little room in which to move, legally. Shaw said that if anyone reads the minutes of the meetings, the Commission was told that it did not have the legal backup and was very dosely coached at what members could and could not say during those meetings. He said there was an ADA issue brought in on that, and he feels this commission has been very firmly placed in the middle where it has taken the heat for things that someone else in the City could have well stood up to say, "We believe this should happen," and not thrown this commission in the middle of it. Shaw said there are members of this commission that he personally knows called members of the City Council to ask for backing on the 621 Summit Street issue to see if they would be supported if the Commission denied it. He said these members were told that the City was not going to enter a legal battle on this because there was a feeling that they would be in a tenuous situation. Shaw said this Commission was placed in an extremely difficult position and did not get support from a number of places where they should have had it. He stated that as a result, the Commission sits here meeting after meeting being told what a poor job it did. Shaw said that was not fair to this Commission, and he thinks there are some basic understandings from the people who are making those comments. Shaw said Macfarlane asked the question why compromise. Shaw said he feels that if historic districts are going to be established, you need to establish them with an understanding that these areas are not suspended in amber and will change and should change, and that is par'l of their character. He said part of the appeal of these areas is the fact that they have changed over time. He said that is one of the things that gives fabric to the neighborhood on Summit Street. Shaw said to say that we stand and will not allow any sort of compromise is a position that in the long run will do harm to the historic preservation movement because it is going to end up costing people so much to do anything in the districts that there will be a general reluctance to become part of a district. Shaw said he was very tired of hearing the public say that the Commission, whose members are donating their time, is doing such a poor job. Macfarlane said he is all in favor of compromise when it is appropriate, but he thinks standards are standards. He said he did not ask Commission members to vote no on this. Macfarlane said what he asked the Commission to do was not to compromise its standards. He said that if the standards are met, then the Commission should vote yes. Macfarlane said the applicant has a legal right to build a duplex there; that is the law. He said if the Commission members feel this is historically appropriate, they should vote yes. Macfarlane said that if Commission members feel the construction standards are not appropriate, then they should vote no. He said he believed the Commission's constitution requires it to compromise with the applicant, but he believes it is inappropriate in this case, purely because there is no building there, it is a vacant lot, and the applicant does not have an emotional involvement with this. This is probably the time when the least amount of compromise is required. Macfarlane said that in all other circumstances before the Commission, compromise would surely be appropriate. Houser said that whether or not he lives on the street should not have any effect on the Commission. He said the historic ordinance does not deal with "emotional involvement," whether it is right or wrong. Houser said the Commission 's job is to look at the plans and say, okay, "is this appropriate." He said there will be change over the years and he asked what will be done when there aren't as many trees to be cut down and other materials have to be used. Houser said the Commission is setting precedence now and even in ten years. He said we don't Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 7 know at this point. Houser said someone may decide you can't use any more redwood at all, and all these homes are going to have to have something done to them. He asked what the Commission was going to do. He said they are setting precedence now that in ten years, they can' t change that. Public discussion closed. Malkmus said there are two things in front of the Commission to decide, and before the actual vote, Commission members should make clear their reasons for not choosing vinyl siding. She said the Commission should then decide to accept or reject a proposal to use fiber cement as the siding material. Malkmus said she believed the only other issue outstanding is the soffit material, which is an important issue that is part of the character of the house. Kugler said there are also the conditions that were suggested and there was some consensus about at last Thursday's meeting, which if the Commission votes to approve this project, should be incorporated into the motion. He said there should also be some discussion about how this proposal either meets or does not meet the guidelines that are outlined in the 1990 procedures and guidelines. Kugler said basically the Commission has guidelines that have been adopted, and this project is to be reviewed under those guidelines, which basically say the new building needs to be harmonious with the district. He said standard A states, "...not mimic historic styles, however such designs must be harmonious with surrounding structures and must not compromise the historic character of the district." He said the rest of the standards outline things to look at to ensure that compatible and harmonious design. Kugler said the Commission should relate its decision to those standards as closely as possible. Gunn said if he was not mistaken, the siding aside and the soffit aside, everything the subcommittee asked for and everything the Commission asked for at the previous meeting between acceptance of this list and the changes he has seen so far has been addressed, and the Commission has received what it asked for. He asked if anyone could think of anything. Kugler said there are some details that probably haven't been carried over, and that is why he believes it is a 9ood idea to include the list in any motion. Gunn said the list and the plans together accommodate everything the Commission asked for. He said if he was not mistaken, they were down to discussing soffit material and siding. Malkmus asked how many people were in favor of the fiber-cement siding and would accept it as proposed for this project. Day said she didn' t see it, so she wanted to hear some discussion from those who did see it. Malkmus said she did see all of the examples. She said she thought the siding with the wood grain was quite tacky and would not be appropriate at all. She also thought they managed to blend it in pretty well on a project where they had to finger old siding with the Hardi-plank and that it was not apparent which was the new and which was the old. Malkmus said it can be done well. She said she also thought there was a certain uniformity to the product that does not look like wood, which kind of has an inherent nature. Malkmus said that for that reason she thought it is possible to distinguish, but in general, it looked good. Malkmus asked if someone wanted to speak to its quality in terms of reliability and lasting in this climate. Michaud said that the four projects she looked at were done within the last two years and have had maybe one winter. Michaud said she did not think the Commission should really endorse it because it does not have a track record. She said the Commission did not do a comprehensive search on the product for articles and only got a technical article on it. Michaud said that if you' re satisfied that it is a viable material, it is probably a good compromise. She said it looked very crisp on the buildings, and she did see some irregularities so actually thought that Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 8 was good. Michaud said the Commission also needs to think about, if there are certain building materials that it is going to approve, sustainable building materials. She said that is a good point that redwood might not be available forever. Michaud said it is just not ecological to keep cutting down trees if you can use something else that is better and more durable. She said that in that sense the technology has evolved, and it looks very similar. Michaud said this is just not Williamsburg. Anderson said he drove by 1836 G Street. He said it was painted, and he thought it looked very good. Kelly asked if he got out and went up to the siding, and Anderson said he did. Gunn said at that property the west side is wood, half of the south face is wood, and the other half where they added on is blended with the fiber-cement siding. Anderson said when you get up close, you can obviously tell but not from a distance. Gunn said it would have been hard to tell the difference without some peeling paint on the old house. Gersh said he had to make a case for wood. He said the Secretary of the Interior Standards said they should try to have the same materials. Secondly, Gersh said the Hardi-board that he looked at had a uniformity to it that wood doesn't have. He said each piece is exactly the same. Gersh said when a builder constructed his addition, redwood was used, and the builder beveled the edges of the redwood so that it is not just a block of wood with four corners. He said it has a shape to it and it sort of graded on one side B thicker at the top and thinner at the bottom. Gersh said it is not just a rectangular block slapped up against the building, which is what this looks like. He said the Hardi-plank does not look like wood to him. Gersh said it doesn't matter to him whether wood will be around for ten years or 20 years; he said Iowa City might not be around for 50 years. He said we don't know and can't talk about the future. Gersh said that is not what we are talking about here; we're talking about right now. He endorsed the economic arguments made by Steele, saying that $60 per square foot is extremely low for construction. Kelly said she would also support wood and did not believe she would approve anything that is a mixture: vinyl, Hardi-plank, wood. She said it should be one way or the other. Gersh said the whole place, softits and siding, should all be the same. Kelly said that is a bad combination because they don't fit together, for one thing, and are not historically accurate, for another. Kelly said she cannot see that the amount of money you would save putting vinyl there would be worth it. She said she tried to do it on her house and was unsuccessful. Malkmus asked if the Commission is willing to think of having beaded ceiling boards on the soffit but Hardi-board on the siding. Kelly said she would stick with the wood. She said the Commission is setting a very dangerous precedent. Kelly said when you get to another district with there is a greater variety of products, that is a different type of thing. She said she is not saying that anything that is built in an historic district should be wood but thinks you have to go district by district because that is one of the things the Secretary of the Interior tries to point out more than anything else. Kelly said the Old Home Journal just did a complete article on what is compatible, and they again repeat how important it is to be historically accurate with the materials. Gersh said wood would not necessarily set a precedent for all of Iowa City, but the Commission is just talking about Summit Street here. Day asked Kugler to reread that standard from the guidelines. Kugler said these are the guidelines adopted in 1990 along with the procedures for handling review. Under item number one, general, item A, it reads, "The design of new structures need not mimic historic styles. The intent of these guidelines is to encourage creativity in design, including contemporary styles. However, such designs must be harmonious with surrounding structures and must not compromise the historic character of the district." Day said that for her that is the crucial issue. She said it is not ecological issues, nor is it to prove that she Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 9 has guts or not or to prove that she is dedicated to historic preservation. Day said her purpose is to determine if it meets that one critical criterion. Kugler said the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Building have been mentioned a bit. He said there is a section dealing with historic districts/neighborhoods, although obviously the preferred solution, if possible, when dealing with a new addition or new building would be to use the materials found in the district. Kugler said there is a recommended as well as a non-recommended section to the guidelines. He read from the recommended section on page 50 of the guidelines, "Repairing features of the building, streetscape or landscape by reinforcing the historic materials: repair will also generally include the replacement in kind-or with a compatible substitute material-of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts or features when they are surviving prototypes such as a porch, balustrade..." He said they are talking about replacing certain materials with replacement materials and are not talking about a new building. Under the not recommended section, Kugler read, "Using a substitute material for the replacement part that does not convey the visual appearance of the surviving part of the building, streetscape, or landscape feature." He said there is reference at least in this section to using a substitute material that conveys the same visual appearance of what is there. Gersh said that also goes on to say that the replacement material should not be physically or chemically incompatible, so that means not a different material. Malkmus said she suspected what they are talking about is that you would not want to apply a material that would degrade adjacent material. She said she did not think that was about mixing two materials, incompatible in a visual or aesthetic sense. Gersh said it is kind of ambiguous. Gunn said you could paint a material with something and the paint could deteriorate the original historical material. He said he would take it the way Malkmus has. Anderson said it does not make sense to say using a substitute material is ok, and then eliminate all materials that are physically and chemically different. Malkmus said it seems these are the standards the Commission will have to use if it makes a decision not to use vinyl siding, and the Commission will have to distinguish why vinyl is not compatible and why, if approved, fiber-cement siding is. Kelly said vinyl is not compatible because it does not have the same character. She said it is very uniform and if you looked at the last windstorm, it is far more perishable under strong winds than wood. Kelly said she saw many places where it ripped off, so that it may not be as structurally sound. She said that physically it does not have the same appearance as wood. Malkmus said the Commission should try to ensure everyone has a chance to express himself to get a sense of how the vote is going and then move ahead kind of straw polling through the soffit/siding material. She said after that the Commission should make it very clear why it will not accept vinyl siding. Widness (I think) said, going to back the general guideline A that was just read, it talks about that the intent may include contemporary styles to encourage creativity. She said she would have less trouble with this board if this were a contemporary house or something that is not trying to look historic. Widness said when you have a design that is supposed to look like it is going to fit into the district, it is very difficult for her to look past this stuff. She stated that she thought this is a good compromise for some situations but she personally did not think this was the right situation for it. Anderson said he was comfortable with the Hardi-plank. He said he believes it is visually compatible, and from a distance, certainly from the street, he would be very hard-pressed to tell Historic Preservation Commission August17,1998 Page 10 the difference between the Hardi-plank and the wood, which is not the case with vinyl siding. Day said she believes it compromises the historic character of this particular district and that is a sticking point for her. Michaud said she looked at the Hardi-plank close up and thought it looked woodlike. She said she is not a construction worker so does not know how the windows would look compared to wood. Michaud said she thought she would vote for the Hardi-plank. Gunn said he looked at all of the five homes on the list he was given. He said that appearance of the Hardi-plank is really quite good, although not perfect. Gunn said it is slightly thinner than wood with a square edge, so is a little bit thinner on the bottom with the square edge on the top. He said it lays what appears to be a little bit flat on the face, but on the whole, he thinks it is very close. Gunn said that even on the 1836 G Street house where there was half wood siding and half Hardi- plank, you almost could not tell the difference. He said if you couldn't see where the craftsmanship is a little bit shaky in the blending, it would read across the face in the south facing the sun as being the same material. Gunn said that on visual grounds, he cannot exclude it. He said there is a possibility that it will hold paint better than redwood but that has been untested, and we won' t know that for many years. Gunn said it is certainly less expensive and has certain rot - resistance. He said that given all its properties and the fact that it can be painted whatever colors people want to choose, as well as the appearance of it, it is certainly compatible with historic districts. Michaud said the other point is that if this were a historic village and every building in the village had four-inch clapboard siding on it, this would stand out. She said there is a variety of width of siding on Summit Street, even in the most historical houses, so she did not think this little difference in texture with a compatible width plank is going to be at all significant. Malkmus said she has no problem with what the 'Commission knows about it. She says she is, however, persuaded that this project, on the whole, is designed for economy and is not designed to be an expensive house or have a whole lot of character. Malkmus said she thinks the Commission' s job is not to judge just the overall price of the project. She said this is discussing a new building in the historic district, not one of costs. Kelly said one thing not to lose site of is that once you begin to compromise, the next time it will be easier to compromise and you end up with a lot of compromises down the road, especially when there are a lot of chances for infill in a lot of historic districts. She said that is why she believes they have to take this district by district and not think about making things blanket right now. Malkmus said she agreed with this. Kelly said this decision is only for the Summit Street District. Someone from the public questioned how you can call this wood-like. He said that is semantics. Malkmus said the meeting was not open for public discussion at the present time. Malkmus said the issue comes down to whether Hardi-plank is going to be compatible with the district. She said she does not honestly think this house as conceived as a project, and she believes the Commission has a right to look at its unity of design, really merits wood siding. Malkmus said it isn't that kind of a house, and for that reason, she was inclined to say that fiber- cement siding is more realistic for this project. She said that whether this project then fits in the district opens up a discussion that the Commission more or less went through last week when it assumed that this project would be acceptable. Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 11 Anderson asked Kugler how a four to four vote would leave the applicant. Kugler said a majority of the members present would be required to pass any motion so that if the vote on this material is four to four, the motion would fail. Malkmus said she is hearing that there is a potential for passing a certificate of appropriateness with wood siding and wood softits. Gersh said he would vote for that. Kugler said if the motion is made to approve with the use of Hardi-plank and received a four to four vote, there would be an opportunity for someone to make another motion with that condition removed. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for 803 South Summit Street and the adjacent lot with the conditions listed in Kugler's letter to Brad Houser and the use of fiber-cement material for the siding and grooved aluminum beaded soffit material. Gunn seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 4-4. Kugler said there could still be a motion to approve this with different conditions. Holecek said there could be another motion with different conditions and recommendations or a motion to deny. She said she was not intimately familiar with the application for a certificate of appropriateness and asked what type of material was specifically applied for. Malkmus said it was not listed. Kugler said the Commission does have a specifications list that says vinyl. Houser said originally he had asked for vinyl and then the Commission talked about using the Hardi-plank instead. He said his question is when they do this and vote this down, are they setting a precedent for all districts. Houser said he thinks they are. Kelly and Gersh said they are not. Gersh said the Commission is not saying that they are. Houser said that as a Commission, as a whole, they are setting that precedent. Gersh said the standards say they must be applied district by district. Holecek said the response to that is the whole issue of compatibility so that there are defining characteristics in each historic district, so that the north side would be different than Summit Street, as opposed to the Moffitt Cottage Historic District. She said the materials are going to be different. Houser said you've got aluminum, steel, and vinyl on the street the way it is right now so how do you define that. He said there is not a building permit required to put siding on what is there, so he is being compatible. He said he even has lap or just straight masonite siding right next door and vinyl siding in the garage that was approved 18 months ago. MOTION: Gersh moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for 803 South Summit Street and the adjacent lot with the conditions in Kugler's letter to Brad Houser and with wood to be used for the siding and the soffit material, with the soffit material to be beaded and applied parallel to the side of the house. Kelly seconded the motion. Holecek requested that the Commission articulate its reasons for their findings with respect to this motion. She said she preferred that the Commission do so before the vote. Kelly said the Commission already did that individually. Gunn said he thought the Commission should discuss whether it is setting precedence here. He said that in the Longfellow District, which is next up to be discussed as its implementation as a district, he has real concerns about requiring redwood only. Kelly said that is another district, another group of buildings, and that will be discussed individually. Gunn said the reason there is wood now for the Summit Street property is the bulk of the homes have wood siding. He said that in the Longfellow District, the bulk of the homes have wood siding in a similar fashion. Gunn asked if the Commission would make a differentiation between the districts, and would it be made Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 12 along economic grounds; he did not know if it could be made on appearance grounds. Gunn asked where the distinction was. Malkmus said that, from what she learned in Denver, the question of economics is very subtle in historic preservation, and it really only would come up when the Commission is actually taking value away from someone by restrictions being placed on the property beyond a reasonable limit. She said she did not think that in this case, for example, that Houser is losing that much value by the Commission 's decision. She said she understands that in his mind he sees a $20,000 price tag difference and that is very important. Malkmus said, however, that he still has a lot, still has a lot that he could build on. She said he has money he could invest in this property in a single-family house and have a lot more appropriate design for this district. Maimus said in a lot of ways she does not feel the Commission is putting on a financial burden or any sense of taking away his legitimate property rights. She said she did not think that is an issue here. Anderson said Gunn's question was that the Commission is basing its decision on that most of the houses are wood so require wood, but that will be true of almost any historic district, although the Moffitt houses are obviously different. Anderson said a lot of older houses were built with wood so that will be a factor in every district the Commission looks at. He said the question is why require wood in this instance and then not require wood in Longfellow. Kelly said you need to drive down Summit Street and then turn around the corner and go down to Longfellow and right there you will see the rationale. She said it is an entirely different district and there is the elegance of Summit Street versus the utilitarian of Longfellow. Kelly said Longfellow was a very pleasant, middle class neighborhood, and that could not be said about Summit Street. Gersh said if you read the surveys for the Summit Street Historic District and the Longfellow, it definitely becomes clear. Anderson said that has not been articulated; the thing that has been said is that the other houses are wood and this one needs to be wood. Malkmus asked if the Commission is talking about the cost of redwood or the elegance of its appearance, and Kelly responded it was the elegance of appearance. Kelly said she was not going to talk about cost; she was sure there were arguments pro and con for cost. She said she also feels that those are two very different districts and should be dealt with as they come up, as she was sure they would be. Gersh said in his mind, the Commission has already articulated its justification for the use of wood: 1 ) the other houses on Summit Street have it predominately, and 2) neither the Hardi-plank nor the vinyl look enough like wood. Malkmus asked Gersh if he would require it on any district where wood was the predominant material. Gersh said he was not even thinking about the future. Malkmus said the Commission has an obligation to be consistent and to think of the future. Gersh said there is an also an obligation to make a justification for why, according to the City Attorney, the Commission would prefer wood. He said that is what he is focused on now, and as far as the future goes, the Commission has to go district by district, just like the standards calls for. Gersh said both the Iowa City standards and the Secretary of the Interior Standards call for looking at a house in relation to the surrounding houses. He said that maybe there is an area of Longfellow where it is all wood and he would probably say it should be wood there, but if there is an area of Longfellow where half the houses are vinyl siding or half are some other side of siding, then he would consider the other kind of siding too. Gersh said Longfellow is a huge district and different streets are different there. He said he would have to go by the context of the individual house and cannot really say what he would do right now because Longfellow is so variable. Malkmus said, using that argument, if Gersh says the context for the Summit Street District is local, then it is surrounded by houses that are much newer and much more modest than any area of Longfellow. Gersh said local but you have to consider the relation to the contributing houses as Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 1998 Page 13 the standards say, contributing to the historic district. He said those houses around it are not contributing and so the same would go for Longfellow and he would use the same approach when considering some place in Longfellow sometime in the future. Malkmus said it seems clear that there would not be any contributing vinyl houses in Longfellow. Gersh said that is not known. Malkmus said vinyl has only been out 20 years, and the district is an older district. Gersh said he did not notice in reviewing the Longfellow Neighborhood that houses were excluded from being contributing because of their siding. He said they were mostly excluded because of the shape or remodeling or something like that. Michaud asked if when he drove by the examples he did not think they looked like wood. Gersh said they don't look like wood because when you go and do the construction, people plane it down so it is beveled; it is not an exact rectangle of wood that is put up, like the Hardi-plank is an exact rectangle. Gunn said if the Commission votes and it results in a 4-4 tie and the second motion fails, then it doesn't get approved. He said if it passes, it passes and that is the end of it. Gunn asked what would happen if there were a four to four tie. Gersh said Houser would then go to the City Council if he wants to, or otherwise just let it go. Gersh asked if nonapproval did not mean disapproval. Kugler said the Commission would probably have to turn the motion around and vote on a motion for denial. Holecek said that was one method, or Houser can ask for a deferral when there is a full contingent of the Commission. Kugler said there was a full contingent as there are now two vacant seats. Malkmus said she would like to hear from Day and Widness for the record. Widness said she did not want to repeat that what has been said, but one of the points she made earlier was that the guidelines talk about allowing or not prohibiting creative use of materials and new styles. She said she would have less problem accepting this material on something that was not trying to look like an old house. Widness said when you try to have something that is to be integrated into these other old houses, then the material of choice should be the real thing, which in this case is wood. She said the other reservation she had about this fiber-cement board is that we don' t know how it will last or how it will play out in 12 years. Widness said if this becomes the thing the Commission gives its okay to because wood is too expensive and vinyl siding looks fake and we find out in 15 years that this does not turn out to be the material we thought it was, then it won' t be a happy day for a lot of homeowners who came to the Commission and asked for approval to do this. She said she is not enthusiastic about saying, "Yes, this material is fine. It' s the closest thing we can get to wood that isn't wood," until she knows what its track record will be. Gersh said that would also be a precedence-setting thing if the Commission approves the fiber-cement material. Malkmus said that wood is not what it used to be. She said redwood siding is cut on the stump and is not kiln dried. She said there are a lot of problems with modern wood peeling, getting pulpy, and rotting much sooner than it used to. Malkmus said wood siding from 100 years ago is not really the same as wood available today. She said the Commission could say that given what little is known, it could still approve the alternative material, but it does not mean the Commission is recommending this wood for historic districts. It would mean the Commission is giving its okay to homeowners who wish to use it. Day said whenever you disturb an historical district, either to improve it or cause it neglect, if there is a change, there is a set of gates that must be passed through to approve that disturbance. She said disturbances can be wonderful, and that is not intended as a negative word. Day said the first gate is if it compromises the historical character of the district. She said you cannot go on to the Historic Preservation Commission August 17. 1998 Page 14 other gates until you have passed through that one and answered that question. Day said if you answer yes, then the discussion is over. She said that in this one case of Summit Street, she thinks this does compromise the historic character of the district, and she cannot get past that first gate. Michaud said she thinks this is a modified Victorian, and she thinks that is the first gate, and after that it is the materials. Day said the choice of materials immediately forces you into selection of several materials together for the softits, trim, and siding. She said then you have several types of materials together that she does not find compatible or reflective of the historic package. Michaud said this could be a gross distinction and she should be able to see but she wondered if this wasn't a very parallel situation to going from a tin roof to asphalt shingles. She asked if someone with building or design experience could explain to her the difference. Kelly asked which came first. Michaud said wood came first. She said she guessed that all changed over time because it was more maintainable. Kelly said she did not think it was a fair comparison. Gunn said he thinks that some number of years ago that people concerned about putting on new- fangled asphalt shingles with green granule faces and red and all sorts of bright colors must have had the same discussion about the proper old material. He said red cedar shingles are extremely expensive and they are no longer visible on all of Summit Street; there is not a single house on Summit Street with a wood roof. He said that is a dramatic change in appearance, and economics simply forced the issue. Gunn said the difference between fibrous cement board and wood siding is almost not even detectable. He said it is not a shoddy material, not pressboard, and is a suhstantial material used in other places. Gunn said this is not talking about residing an old house but is about the new house that is supposed to contribute something and be compatible with the character of the district. He said he thinks it is and to force the use the redwood is asking a lot. Gunn said vinyl siding could go up on any property on Summit Street, and the Commission would be powerless to stop it. He said the Commission approved vinyl siding on a garage not too long ago and thought it also had approved pressboard siding. Gunn said he thought it sits next to a house with vinyl siding and next to a house with asbestos cement siding. He said he thinks this house fits as proposed better in the district than many other homes that already exist in the district. Gunn said he believes the Commission is making a distinction that cannot be defended with the visual appearance of the product. Michaud said the Commission was also advised by its last volunteer architectural advisor to accept alternate siding, and she thought he was probably aware of the market forces that the Commission members may not all be interested in. Malkmus said she agreed in large part, with Gunn, and he put it very well that in terms of appearance, this is difficult to distinguish with wood. She said this is not trying to make an old house but trying to make a house that has visual compatibility with the district. Malkmus said that for those reasons, she would vote for using fiber/cement siding. She said for the same reasons she would vote against using vinyl. Anderson said the motion is to approve wood, and even though he voted to approve the Hardi- plank, he would vote to approve wood because otherwise there is no option to build. Holecek said the Commission could also put a motion on the floor to approve the application with vinyl siding. She said that would give a definite result that could be appealed to the City Council, and the Council could then modify it, either allowing the Hardi-plank material or the wood. Holecek said, for instance, if there is a four to four tie on the wood, the Commission could go back and do a Historic Prese~ation Commission August17,1998 Page 15 certificate of appropriateness approving vinyl. She said that would not likely pass. Holecek stated that will be the recommendation and the actual action taken by the Commission then, because there is no actual action on a tie vote. The action would be denial of a certificate of appropriateness requesting vinyl siding. She said that would then be what was appealed to the City Council, and that could be modified or approved. Anderson asked about the four to four vote on the fiber-cement material. Holecek said it was a vote taken but was not an action. Gersh said there is a danger in what the City Attorney is suggesting, because if there is a motion mentioning vinyl, the City Council can overturn that and give the okay to vinyl. He said if the Commission doesn't even mention vinyl and just talks about wood, that option isn't as obvious. Holecek said the minutes would be read. Kugler said the application was for vinyl siding, and if one of the conditions is no vinyl, but wood, that decision can be appealed. Anderson said he might vote against the wood then. Holecek stated that the applicant can appeal even a passage and request a modification of that passage. Anderson said that while he does believe the Hardi-plank is appropriate, he would go ahead and vote for wood. The motion carried on a vote of 6-2. Kugler said the applicant has the right to appeal any decision of the Commission to the City Council within ten days of the date this decision is filed with the City Clerk. He said he will go ahead and prepare the certificate of appropriateness as quickly as possible, however, the applicant can submit an appeal to the City Clerk, if he desires, at any time within that period. Houser indicated that he would likely do that. Malkmus asked if anyone was owed any further discussion on vinyl siding, given that it was discussed at length at the last meeting. Holecek responded that if the Commission feels it has made a clear record as to the parameters and criteria for distinguishing appropriate exterior building materials, further discussion would not be necessary. Michaud said they drove around to look at the recent fiber-cement examples but did not drive around to see recently applied, in better housing construction, vinyl. Gersh said the Commission looked at examples last time. Michaud noted that those samples were just little pieces, and were not applied to the house. DISCUSSION OF ANNUAL REPORT: Kugler said the City puts together a booklet of reports from all of its boards and commissions each year. He said generally this is put together at the end of the fiscal year. Kugler said he typically takes last year's report as well as the report that comes out of the Commission 's annual planning session and looks at agendas and so forth to determine what was accomplished over the Fast year. Kugler said he then puts a draft together for Commission review and have an opportunity to add to or amend the report. He said that by September 1, the Commission has to have a completed report in to the City Manager' s Office. Widness asked about the second paragraph where it says the Commission furthers the efforts of historic preservation in the City by making recommendations to the City Council. She said that in the minutes from the July meeting, Eleanor Dilkes made it very clear that this was not a Commission that made recommendations. Kugler said the Commission makes the decisions AGENDA IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1998 -- 5:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Call to Order Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda Certificate of Appropriateness Reviews: 1. 803 S. Summit Street 2. 414 Brown Street Discussion of Grant Projects 1. Longfellow Neighborhood Survey, Phase 2 2. Original Town Plat Survey, Phase 2 3. Early Neighborhood Northeast of the Odginal Town Plat, Phase 3 Report on National Commission Forum Update on Fall Seminar Schedule Annual Planning Session Discussion of Annual Report Discussion of State Grant Programs Consideration of Minutes from the July 9, 1998 Meeting Commission Information/Discussion Adjoumment ppdadmin/hp~d.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: August 7, 1998 Historic Preservation Commission Scott Kugler, Associate Planner August 13 Agenda Items Certificates of Appropriateness: Lots I and 2, M&W Addition (803 S. Summit Street): An application has been filed for the construction of a new building on Lot 2 of the M&W Addition, created last year when the property at 803 S. Summit Street was subdivided. Plans call for the construction of a duplex on the property. The packet contains a set of plans filed for this property on July 31. Since then, the certificate review task group has met to review the plans. John Shaw has also volunteered his time to assist in the review and provide input. Comments on the plans have been forwarded to the applicant, who indicated that revised plans will be submitted. I will forward the revised plans on to Commission members as soon as they are submitted. 4 14 Brown Street: An application has been submitted for alterations to the roofline of one of the buildings at Black's Gas Light Village on Brown Street. The alterations would affect a number of additions at the rear of the historic building along Brown Street, but would have minimal visibility from the street or adjacent properties. Grant Projects: Longfellow Neighborhood Survey, Phase I1: The final survey report is included in the Commission members' mailing. All grant products have been submitted to the State for review. This project has been completed. National Commission Forum: Doris Malkmus and Trudy Day attended this conference in Denver July 31 through August 2, and will discuss information that they received with the rest of the Commission. Fall Seminar: Betty Kelly has organized a workshop or seminar to be held on Saturday, October 17 at a location to be determined. Presenters will include Marlys Svendsen to discuss historic paint schemes and Judy McClure, and architect with the State Historical Society, to discuss the implementation of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and design review. Annual Planning Session: Each year, the Commission sets aside time to discuss its priorities for the upcoming calendar year. It is best to do this at a separate session with no other items on the agenda and not at a regular meeting. Bring your calendars and come prepared to schedule the planning session for sometime in September. It is best if everyone can attend this session. Annual Report: It is time to prepare the Commission's annual report. I have included last year's annual report in the packet, but I have not completed a draft of the report for this year. I will try to get a draft of this years report in the mail to commission members on Monday so that it can be discussed at the August 13 meeting. If anyone is unable to attend the August 13 meeting, please call me at 356-5243. JUL-27-98 13,S~ FROM,City of IOUA CITY ID,31838GS008 PAGE 2 APPLICATION CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION FOR WORK TO BE DONE ON PROPERTY W1THIN AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE PURSUANT TO IOWA CITY CODE SECTION 14-4C IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION To Be Completed by Applicant Address of Property: Lot 2 - M&W Subdivision Use of Property: RS-8 Duplex Owner of Property: Address if other than above: Bradford O. and Becky Jo Houser 3693 Johnston Way, N.E. North Liberty, IA 52317 · TelePhonei Contractors Name: Address: (319) 626-2492 (Home) Houser Development, Inc. 568 Hwy. 1 West Iowa City, IA 52244 (319) 354-0581 ext.118 (Work) Telephone: Architect: Address: (319) 354- 0581 ext. 118 Alhman Design Group Telephone: (319) 395-7900 Date of Application: 7-30-98 Elevation drawings, photographs of the existing building, and attendance at the Commission meeting at which the applicaUon will be considered am required. Other materials. such as manufacturers catalog data and samples of materials are optional. JLIL-27-88 13,80 FROM,City OF IOWA CITY ID,31838GS00-q PACE 3 -. Describe below work to be carried out, induding methods and materials to be used and appearance changes that will result. Attach additional sheets if necessary. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached plan. MATERIALS TO BE USED: See attached material list. APPEARANCE CHANGES: See attached plan. See site plan. .lUL-27-88 13,Se FROM,City OF IOWA CITY ID,3193S65008 PAGE 2 APPLICATION CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION FOR WORK TO BE DONE ON PROPERTY' WITHIN AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE PURSUANT TO IOWA CITY CODE SECTION 14-4C IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION To Be Completed by Applicant Address of Property: Lot 1 - .M&W Subdivision Use of PropertT. RS-8 - Garage added 1:o existing duplex lo1: Owner of Property:. Address if other than above: Woodrow E. (II) and Melinda Houser Telephone:. Contractor's Name: Address: Houser Development, Inc. 568 Hwy. 1 West Iowa City, IA 52244 Telephone: (319) 354-0581 ext. 118 Architect Alhman Design Group Address:' 2202 Heritage Green Drive Hiawatha, IA 52233 Telephone: Date of Application: ( 319 ) 395-7900 7~30-98 (319) 395-7933 Elevation drawings, photographs of the existing building, and attendance at ~e Commission meeting at which the application will be considered am required. Other materials. such as manufacturer's catalog data and samples of materials are optional. ID:3193868009 JUL-27-98 13,80 FROM:City oF IO~/A CITY Oesctibe be{ow work to be carried out, including methods and matetiers to be used and appearance changes that will result. Attach additional sheet~ if necessary. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached plan. PACE 3 MATERIALS TO BE USED: See attached m~terial list. APPEARANCE CHANGES: See attached plan. See site plan. / / / / / / STROHM'S ADDITION 12' ALLEY M ,,Sg,GY.OO N (~),~0'06 b SITE PLAN M t W ADDITION IOWA CITY, IOWA I PATIO Z] ,. ~ ~J FLOOR PRAY_ iO'lO 5(2.~T, L tLfOOD DECK rlAETER BEDROQrf r'rB" x II BEDfi~OOH 12 11'4" X SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1010 SO.FT. HOUSER DEVELOPMENT Summit St. Duplex SPECIFICATIONS FOUNDATION - POURED CONCRETE AS PER PLAN. WALL FRAMING - SHALL BE SPRUCE, FIR OR WHITEWOOD AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS, WITH 7/16" WAFFER SEATHING. FLOOR FRAMING - SHALL BE (ls'r FLOOR: TGI - 16" - 55 SERIES - 16. O.C AND 2/'~AND 3P'D FLOOR: TGI - 9 1/4 - 15 SERIES - 16 O.C.) TRUSSES WITH W' OSB T&G AND W' GYPCRETE SOUND PROOFING (2~ AND 3P''n FLOOR ONLY). 7-31-98 4. BUILDING EXTERIOR , A. VINYL SIDING (AS PER PLAN) B. ENGINEERED TRUSSES, FELT AND SHINGLES (AS PER PLAN) C. ROOF VENTILATION o VETARIDGE D. SOFFIT AND FACIA - ALUMINUM WITH VENTILATION GRILLS E. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS - ALUMINUM EXTERIOR DOORS - STANLEY INSULATED STEEL DOOR, OR EQUAL, AS PER PLAN (DEAD BOLTS AND PEEP SITES ON APARTMENT ENTRIES). EXTERIOR WINDOWS - WENCO VINYL WINDOWS 760 SERIES WITH DOUBLE INSULATED GLASS, OR EQUAL. SUIT ENTRY DOORS - (OPTION A) - SOLID CORE, METAL JAMBS PREFINISHED LEGACY OAK WITH PASSAGE KNOB, DEAD BOLT LOCK (MASTER KEYED), AND PEEP SITES. (OPTION B) - SOLID CORE, METAL JAMBS PRIMED WHITE VENEER, WITH PASSAGE KNOB, DEAD BOLT LOCK (MASTER KEYED), AND PEEP SITES. INTERIOR TRIM - (ALL INTERIOR TRIM SHALL BE REAL OAK, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE). A. INTERIOR DOORS - 13/8" HOLLOW CORE WITH SPLIT JAMB.. B. CASING - 2 ¼" OAK OR MDF - PRIMED WHITE - 3 5/8" WIDE. C. BASE - RUBBER OR MDF - PRIMED WHITE o 5 1/4" WIDE. D. WINDOWS -WRAPPED OPENINGS, SILLS TO BE OAK OR MDF AND SIDES PAINTED WITH ENAMEL PAINT. E. CLOSET DOORS 13/8" HOLLOW CORE BIFOLD DOORS WITH WRAPPED OPENINGS. , F. CLOSET SHELVES - WIRE MOLD, WHITE G. FURNACE ROOM DOOR HOLLOW CORE WITH THRESHOLD (OPTION B) - 13/8 SOLID CORE DOORS WITH SPLIT JAMBS AND SOLID DOOR 1N ALL PLACEMENT. INTERIOR WALLS AND CEILINGS A. SHEETROCK - 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD THROUGHOUT. B. TEXTURE - ORANGE PEEL TEXTURE ON ALL WALLS AND CEILINGS. C. PAINT - ALL WALLS AND CEILINGS SHALL HAVE TWO COATS OF SHERWIN WILLIAMS LATEX VELVET ENAMEL OR EQUAL. COLOR SHALL BE PICKED BY OWNER. (NOTE: FIRST COAT TO BE FOG COAT). 10. INSULATION A. STUD WALLS - 3 tA HBERGLASS (R-11) 5 ~ - CR-19) B. ATTIC AREA - BLOWN CELLULOSE (R-38) 11. PLUMBING FIXTURES - (AS STATED BELOW OR EQUAL) A. KOHLER GLASS FIBERGLASS K-1585 TUB/SHOWER MODULES B. KOHLER K-15101 SHOWER VALVES C. KOHLER K-3421-K STOOLS WITH KOHLER K-4716-T SEATS (WHITE) D. STOOL SUPPLIES WITH VALVES E. MARBLE LAVATORIES F. KOHLER K-15241 LAVATORY FAUCETS G. LAVATORY SUPPLIES WITH VALVES H. DAYTON 33 X 21 STAINLESS STEEL SINKS, WITH KOHLER K-15235 FAUCET (OPTION FOR A WHITE CAST IRON SINK AND WHITE FAUCET) I. SINK SUPPLIES WITH VALVES J. BADGER DISPOSALS K. RHEEM 40 GALLON NATURAL GAS WATER HEATERS APT. L. COMPLETE GAS SERVICES, ALL METERED SEPARATELY M. THREE WOODFORD #65, C KEYED, FROSTPROOF SILL COCKS - ONE IN GARAGE AREA (CONSTRUCTION MANAGER TO PROVIDE A LOCATION) N. WATER SOFTNER BY-PASS HOOK-UP 12. ELECTRIC - (AS PER PLAN AND TO NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE) - 100 AMP SERVICES, ALL METERED SEPARATELY 13. BATH ACCESSORIES A. 2 - 18" CHROME TOWEL BARS PER BATH B. 1 - CHROME PAPER HOLDER PER BATH C. 1 - EXHAUST FAN PER BATH D. 1 - TUB ENCLOSURE PER BATH 60" TEMPERED GLASS E. 1 - 48" X 36" OR 30" X 36" MIRROR WITH MOUNTING HARDWARE 14. HEAT AND AIR CONDITIONING A. LENNOX 60,000 BTU NATIfRAL GAS FURNACE OR EQUAL 15. CABINETS A. MERILLAT CIRRUS CABINETS WITH SOLID OAK FRAMES, OR EQUAL. B. ALL COUNTER TOPS TO BE POST FORM TOPS. 16. APPLIANCES - (ALL APPLIANCES TO BE WHITE COLOR) APPLIANCES TO BE WHIRLPOOL, CROSLEY, GE, OR EQUAL.) A. TBX14SAX G.E. REFRIDGERATOR B. JBSO3 G.E. ELECTRIC RANGE C. GSD500 G.E. DISHWASHER 17. CARPET AND DRAPES (AS SPECIFIED BELOW OR EQUAL) A. SEE ATTACHED SPECIHCATION SHEET B. VINE BLINDS 18. MISCELLANEOUS A. PREWIRE FOR CABLE TELEVISION OR SATELITE DISH, 1 OUTLET PER BEDROOM, PLUS 2 IN LIVING ROOM B. PREWIRE FOR TELEPHONE/MULTIPLE LINE (SAME NUMBER AS CABLE AND KITCHEN) 19. FIREPLACE A. PREWIRE FOR GAS HREPLACE WITH OPTIONAL FAN BLOWER.\ (ELECTRICIAN TO MAKE CONNECTION TO HREPLACE.) B. RUN GAS PIPING FOR GAS FIREPLACE (PLUMBER TO CONNECT TO FIREPLACE). C. ONE CABLE TV OUTLET LOCATION TO BE SPECIFIED BY OWNER. D. ONE ELECTRICAL OUTLET LOCATION TO BE SPECIFIED BY OWNER. E. FIREPLACE INSTALLED, VENTED, SET UP, CLEANED, STARTED BY SUPPLIER. F. HEAT AND GLO GNDC30 NOVUS 30" CIRCULATING OR EQUAL. DV STD VENT KIT W/90 OR EQUAL. 20. SITE WORK - (AS PER PLAN) A. PARKING AREA SHALL BE 5" THICK 4000 PSI CONCRETE B. SIDEWALKS SHALL BE 4" THICK WITH 3500 PSI CONCRETE C. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE COVERED WITH SOD. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: August 10, 1998 Historic Preservation Commission Scott Kugler, Associate Planner Revised Plans for Lots 1 and 2, M&W Addition (803 S. Summit Street) The applicant has submitted revised plans for the proposed duplex on S. Summit Street based on the comments of the certificate of appropriateness review committee and John Shaw. The revised plans are enclosed. These plans replace the previous set of plans included in your meeting packets, although you may want to retain the previous plans to see what changes were made at the request of the review committee. The review committee will report its recommendation to the full Commission at Thursday's meeting. have also enclosed a copy of the 1990 Procedures and Guidelines document for the Commission's reference. / / / / / / I / I / / I / 1 / / I / / I / A.E. I""" STROHM'S ADDITION 12' LEY ,,~ .!tS,6~,.00 N (I,',1) t"O'06 (~) 06 ~ .L ' C) ' , 'S ' - I I ...... I' ,£0'S~ 0 / SUMMIT a4o __ ) )-- STREET , :' '~ "i" I:"" ""'" " · . .. . .v .~ .~ .. . . ... ~ . · ...~.. ., -,..!.. ~ . .,;.-~ ... .,, . ~ : ., '1 I..'3~.,-,I I ' ,~.' .~,' I LI_ / .h~.,~ I / .e,o{ ' '.o,{ / ~, % le ~~~l~t CDDD ~-. FRR-~ IIIIIIIIIIIIII ,' 'E'EIEFI EREFI EDER -EEIEB EDED 'V City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: August 15, 1998 Historic Preservation Commission Scott Kugler, Associate Planner August 17 Agenda I have attempted to find some local examples in which the fiber cement siding which was discussed at the August 13 meeting was used. I am only able to supply one address for the Commission to visit: 4027 Arrowhead Lane, which is located west of Solon off of 382 and Polk Road. I have not yet had a chance to view this property, but plan to prior to Monday's meeting. According to employees at Nagle Lumber, which carries the hardi-plank product, the siding material has been used on other properties in the vicinity, but they do not keep track of who is purchasing the product. I have included photographs of homes located in a new urbanist development in South Carolina where this product is being used exclusively. I will bring the original photographs to Monday's meeting. I have also included an article about this product from the January 1998 edition of the Journal of Light Construction. If I learn of any more examples of the use of this product between now and Monday's meeting I will try to contact each of you as soon as possible. AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1998 -- 5:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS E. F. G. Call to Order Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda Certificate of Appropriateness: 1, 803 S. Summit Street Discussion of Annual Report Schedule Annual Planning Session Consideration of Minutes from the July 9, 1998 Meeting Adjournment ppdadmin/npc-a:jd .doc F~8 34011.1 $TRF'FT '~ 34.0TH ~I'.RF_rLET_,' ,/ ~ ',he 197()s I did a h~t ,~t' F, ainting and repair work on h~mses that bad been resided with the cen~ent shin- glcs referred to as asbestos siding. l'be material held paint exceptionally well alia seemed like it would last forever. but because it was brittle, it cracked and shat- tered easily. Because the material had been discontin- ued, my partner and I always kept our eyes open for extra shingles stashed in basements and garages. Often, we had to remove good pieces from the back of the building to replace broken pieces in front. WITH by David Frane It's tougher to install than wood siding, but it holds paint better and is impervious to rot Fiber-Cen~enl I -!pdale This earlier type ot t'iber-cen~ent siding fell out of tavor because it was full of asbestos, hard to work with. and ugly. Builders looking for an alternative to wood tun~ed instead to hardboard, particleboard. or vinvl siding. But by the 1990s. problems with these materials caused builders to respond favorably to a new kind of fiber-cement siding. The main ingrediems in today's fiber-cement are Portland cement, sand, and wood fiber. Essentially, it's a masonD' product, so it won't burn, rot, or be eaten by insects. According ~o the manufacturers, fiber-cement is dimension- ally stable, so unlike wood and composites, it won't cup, shrink, or swell. It comes in a broad range of patterns, and at 55¢ per square foot, fiber-cement siding is about the same price as hardboard. Fiber-cement already makes up 7% of the U.S. siding market, and its use is expected to grow. (The fact that major blade and power tool companies are developing equipment to ~t fiber- cement tells me they think it's going to be around for a while.) Four companies are currently selling fiber-cement in the U.S.: James Hardie, FCR MaxiTile, and ABTco. Each company spends a lot of money t~ing to convince builders and home buyers that it makes the best product, but that's not what this article is about. As a foyer carpenteg what I'm interested in is learning the right way to install it. Since more fiber-cement is sold in the Houston, Texas, area than in any other pa~ of the count~, I flew down to visit job sites and talk to contrac- tors who used it. Here's what I discovered. Applications One of the people I visited was Tyrone Faust, of Faust Painting in Kingwood, Texas. He has about 25 field employ- ees, 10 of whom are carpenters. With all the rain and humidity in his area, Faust's crews are always replacing sid- ing that has begun to rot from roof runoff and splashback. The problem is especially bad with hardboard, and because of a class-action lawsuit, Louisiana-Pacific is paying home- owners to replace any of its inner-Seal OSB siding that fails in service. According to Faust, when a house has wood siding, his com- pany replaces rotted or damaged boards with wood, but if it has composite siding, they try to replace it with fiber-cement. "We found that HardiP[ank matches the size and shape of Inner-Seal to a tee," Faust said, "so we staged using it to replace pieces that had rotted out." in many cases, houses are completely stripped and resided with fiber-cement. I also spent time with Ron Rohrbacher, the Director of Construction Training at Perry Homes, a Houston-based company that builds more than 1,000 houses per year. According to Rohrbacher, when you build as many units as Perry Homes does, you can't use a product because you think it might work; it absolutely has to work. The com- pany switched over to fiber-cement siding and trim a few years ago, and Rohrbacher has given a lot of thought to how it is applied. JANUARY JtC 1998 :':!,!-,: ,Most carpenters u_',e diamond-tippect abrasive blades to < ut fiber-cement, which is hard on saws and produces serious clc>uds of dust. Toothed blades cut faster and produce less dust, but the carbide tips dull fairly quickly. \, , ._.------,, ::i~tlre .2". Snapper Lite shears work like motorized tin snips to make straight and curved cuts in fiber-cement without producing dust. The shears are slower than a circular saw but, claims the manufac- turer, are cheaper to run titan a saw. Cutting The first question carpenters ask when they see fiber-cement is how to cut it. Manufacturers make a variety of recom- mendations, including using blades with carbide-tipped teeth, abrasive blades with diamond tips, or shears. While i was in Houston, I talked with \Ves Web of Furman Lumber, a maior distributor of James Hatdie products. He told me Hatdie does not recommend the use of abrasive blades. To demonstrate how little rpm and power it takes to cut fiber-cement, he sliced up a piece of lap siding with a 14.4-volt cordless circular saw equipped with a carbide-tipped blade. I was surprised by the smoothness of the cuts and the speed with which the little saw went through the cementlike material. It was slower than cutting cedar bevel siding, but a lot faster than Cutting nlasotlrv. When [ visited job sites, however, I never once saw a carpenter cut fiber- cement with a carbide-tipped blade- thev all used diamond-tipped masonrv blades. The carpenters [ asked about it said carbide-tipped blades wore out too fast. l'on~ Roe, a product manager at ,\BTco, says carpenters should expect to go through six carbide blades while sid- ing an average-size house. That squares with what carpenters told me: They said tbcy got three or four i~ours' use fronl a carbide blade when cutting fiber- cement. At $6 to $10 each, the cost of blades adds up, especially in an ultra- competitive market like Houston, where installers are paid on a per-square-foot basis. By contrast, carpenters said thev were paying $80 to $100 for 7V4-inch diamond-tip blades and getting about three months' use out of them. Dust problem. Reducing dust is one reason fiber-cement manufacturers pro- mote the use of carbide blades isee Figure 1). Carbide-tipped blades also cre- ate dust, but the particles don't hang in the air as long as the ultra-fine particles produced by an abrasive blade. The dust is more than just a nuisance, because it contains silica. If you breathe enough silica over a long enough period of time, you can develop serious respiratory problems. Of course, the simplest way to deal with the dust is to wear a dust mask while cutting or use a fan to blow the dust away from the cut station. Fiber-cement dust also shortens the life of power tools. It's gritty, so exposed moving parts wear faster, and it can stick to bearings and wick the lubricant out of them. For these reasons, fiber-cement rnakers are working with blade and tool manufacturers to produce longer-lasting carbide blades, as well as circular saws with efficient dust collection systems. Abrasive blades also place a greater strain on saw m~tors than toothed blades, so don't overdo it by gang cut- ting thick stacks of fiber-cement. The carpenters I watched in Houston were cutting trim with circular saws and speed squares. They were more con- cerned about blade wear than tool wear, but the cost equation changes if you work in a part of the country where car- penters cut exterior trim with $500. miter saws. Dust-free cutting. Pacific International Tool and Shear makes equipment that cuts fiber-cement without producing Figure L It's important not to overdrive fas- teners in fil~er-cen~ent, ~,hich is why it's a poor idea to apply it ~ith framing guns. C~nl hailers do the job more R-curatelv, especially if rhe~ have a mechanism for adjusting depth-of-drive, like this after-mar- ket retrofit tip from Duo-Fast. 30 JANUARY tLC Io'.)N .~',~,'~',' :~'[' '.%l~.II,' !~,,' I~H,'!.~I.I!P. 'dlt'.H '~ ,'.,'1', ~"i" Lil ,ii/"."',. '!l'l~l'.ttl. Snaptk'r l. Me S,S,~OZ can make ~trai~ ~t and curved cuts in f~ber-ce~mnt l:i~ure 2~,. It consists ~f a specially made i~tack ~N t)eckcr drill joined to a shearing head. ~nap[k'r Lite'~ shuar ng action ~im~lar to tha~ of d~u[)lc-cutth1~ metal ~p~ in that a center bladu pivots back atkl h3rth bet,,veen fixed ~uter blades, producin~ a curled waste piece as [t~e ~ool advances through the stock. The Snapper [.ite is slower than a circular saw, however, and at S300, is relatively expensive. But the manufacturer claims i['s cheaper to run than a saw, because you can cut 8,000 to 10,000 linear feet of fiber-cement on a $40 set of blades. The current model handles material up to ',; :,~ h~ch thick; a mode] that cuts thicker suock is in the works. Fiber-cement can be nailed bv hand, but most carpenters use coil hailers because they're faster. No one I spoke with thought fiber-cement was particu- larly tou~h on guns, but one carpenter ~ l'amlyn's vinyl inside corner trims arl, desi'4ned specificalJy for use with ~il~er-cement lap siding. Once f~ainted, Hmv h~ok lull like ,aid hc th~ught it nladc drivers wear .,an taster. I)epth-of:drive. Ibe Innst important ,,IHt~nl wbcll rlaj[ill~ t'iher-cement is to i~, .kl, ~crdriving/'asteners. 'the siding is ,>nh '/ h, inch thick. so setting nail heads I}clow the stirface decreases holding power, and in the case of Hardie's prod- ucts. voids the warranty. (This is the rea- son w~u can't use staples or clip-head nails; both penetrate too far and break the surface of fiber-cement.) Duo-Fast has developed an adjustable depth-of- drive mechanisnl that can be used to retrofit older coil nailers (Figure 3), and other tool manufacturers have started building adjustable depth-of-drive into coil nailers, so in the future, it will be easier to install siding properly. Placing fasteners. When you con- sider that fiber-cement usually carries a SO-year warranty, it doesn't make sense to attach it with nails that will rust in a few years. The makers of fiber-cement mandate the use of corrosion-resistant roundhead nails. Unfortunately, the electroplated fasteners that fit most nail guns don't hold up as well as stainless steel, but stainless nails are expensive and typically only fit framing guns. Hot-dipped galvanized nails are highly resistant to corrosion and less expensive F;'4UrL' 5. Fiber-cement lap sitting is applied pretty much the same way as hardboard or cedar lap. Nails should hit the studs and penetrate a minimum of I inch. th.lll nt,iznlL's% 'qccl, init until rc~c:r/tlx', ttk'v wcrc unavailablu f,~r u~e in hailers. l.ast year, however, W.}I. ~lLizc started producing hot-dipped fastuners that fit pneumatic nailers. I'd consider using them, especially if I were building near the coast. Fasteners should be driven into flam- ing members, and depending on the brand of fiber-cement siding, are required to penetrate 1 inch to 1~/4 inches. Most kinds of lap siding are fas- tened at both the top and bottom edge. With an approved exposure, it's also per- missible to blind-nail fiber-cement lap siding -- meaning you have to nail onlv the top edge. Blind-nailing looks good, because fasteners are hidden by succes- sive courses of siding. The builders I spoke with, however, cautioned against blind-nailing in high-wind areas, because if the wind liRs one piece of sid- ing, it will peel everything above it off the wall. The other problem with blind- nailed siding is that the unnailed lower edge won't lie tight to the piece below unless the kame is perfectly fiat. If you plan to blind-nail, use nails with large heads and place them as low as possible -- just above the lap line. Siding Details When plans call for bevel siding, car- penLets typically install vertical trim pieces at inside corners so the siding has something to butt to. Normally, the trim pieces are made from wood, but that doesn't make much sense if you're sial- ing with a material that lasts as long as fiber-cement. On jobs with lap siding, [ saw carpenters using an ingenious vinyl corner trim called the TaTn]yn Vinyl Inside Corner instead of the usua] wood strips (Figure 4). Once the house is sided and painted, the corner is indistinguish- able from a piece of wood, but it won't split or rot. The vinyl corners are 10 feet long and retail for $7.50 apiece. Manufacturers recommend joining pieces of fiber-cement lap siding bv butting them over a stud (Figure 5). There's no need to paint or seal end cuts, but you should leave a t/s-inch gap between the siding and the edge of wood casings and corner boards. The [ANU, tRY JLC 1998 31 E E:~t~rt, b. The frieze, soffit, and fascia on this house are made from fiber-cement, but the uppermost piece of trim is spruce. Builders often find themselves mixing wood and wood-based rnaterials with fiber- cement, because fiber-cement does not yet come in a 3/4-inch-thick size. gap has nothing to do with the fiber- cement; it's there to let the wood move, and should be caulked with latex sealant. Fiber-cement siding can be installed over foam insulation board, but accord- ing to Rohrbacher, Perry Homes stopped doing it when thev ran into fastening problems. "~Ve found that when you shoot a nail into the siding," he explained, "it compresses the foam, which springs back, pulling the nail head into the fiber-cement." Rohrbacher concedes, however, that putting siding over foam might work if the installer takes extreme care when fastening. But he believes that the only way to get a trim sub to be careful enough is for the proiect manager to stand there and watch him put in every nail. Fascia, Softits, and Trim Rohrbacher says that with all the rot and moisture problems in Texas, he's always looking for ways to replace wood and wood-based products with fiber- cement. But fiber-cement isn't yet avail- able in enough sizes and shapes to replace every piece of wood on the houses they build. At Perry Homes, the standard cornice detail is to nail a wood Ix2 along the top edge of a 7/lI,-inch- thick fiber-cement fascia. Rohrbacher . , ,r",,' .~ Figure '. One problem with fiber-cement soffit is that it's hard to nail to. Tamlyn's Snapvent installs without fasteners, provid- ing soffit ventilation while covering the fuzzy, ripped edges of the fiber-cement soffit. told me he'd prefer to build the whole assembly out of fiber-cement, but no one makes material thick enough to give them the 3/4-inch shadow line the detail calls for. At the cornices, Rohrbacher butts the fiber-cement fascia rather than miter- ing (Figure 6). He explained that they tried mitering the material, but the thin edges were brittle and the cuts came out fuzzy. Softits are made from %-inch-thick fiber-cement that comes in 8-foot sheets. Rohrbacher refrained from using the material for soffits, however, until a workable soffit vent became available. Previously, he stapled screen or nailed aluminum vents over cutouts in a wooden soffit. But while you can nail through fiber-cement to fasten it to framing, the material doesn't work as a base for nails or staples because it won't hold fasteners. Eventually, Tamlyn and Sons devel- oped the Snapvent, a continuous vinyl soffit vent that is unobtrusive and easy to install (Figure 7). Once this vent hit the market, Perry Homes started using fiber-cement for soffits. U-shaped chan- nels along the edges of the Snapvent clip onto the fiber-cement soffit pieces, so there's no need to fasten the vent. In addition, the vent hides the ripped edges .~f soltit rr~att'rial. ITamlvn makes a num- ber of i)thcr vinvl flashillgs ,lilt] connec- tor pieces. a~ well a~ a vent that butts t,, brick friezv.~ According t~ Rohrbacher, he still won't use fiber-cement sheet material for entry trim, because the face isn't per- fectly smooth and the factoq edges are thin and rough-looking. When he needs an ultra-smooth surface, he specs MDO pl~ood; when he wants thick, smooth edges, he uses wood or hardboard. Handling Unlike cedar bevel siding, fiber- cement lap siding only comes in 12- foot lengths. As a result, on many of the sites I visited, siding joints were stag- gered in an overly regular pattern. I thought the installations would have looked better if the siding had been placed more randomly. The carpenters I spoke with, however, said that fiber- cement trim pieces are straighter than wood siding, so they spend less time bowing them in alignment. On the other hand, fiber-cement is a lot heavier than wood of comparable thickness: The sAs-inch-thick material weighs about 21/4 pounds per square foot. The carpenters said it takes two people to carry the number of fiber- cement pieces that a single carpenter could carry if it were made from wood. While fiber-cement is hard, it's so flexi- ble that manufacturers suggest you carry it on edge rather than on the flat. I was also told that fiber-cement siding doesn't cover bumps in the flame the way wood ..... -: ~-'~:~? .- ~ , ,--'- :"7 Figure IL Dark rainwater stains on the end of this pallet of lap siding show how fiber cement absorbs moisture. As with masonry, the moisture doesn't hurt the material, but it should be allowed to dry before painting. JANUARY II.C 1998 d~,?s; it you install fiber-cement siding ,,ver a wavy frame. the lumps are going to show through. A couple of companies make 4x8 sheets of grooved vertical siding. The sheets are 5/16 inch thick, so unlike the plywood version I'm used to installing, the edges butt rather than lap. According to the manufacturers, the ioints won't leak if you install the material over a moisture barrier and caulk the joints. They claim that caulk joints hold up well because the material doesn't expand and contract as much as wood. At Perry Homes, however, carpenters regularly double-up studs where panels butt; oth- erwise, there's not enough nailing base. Painting One of the best features of fiber- cement is how well it holds paint. According to Tyrone Faust, even the cheap paint some developers use holds up pretty. well when applied to fiber- ceme:~t. "It doesn't move," he says, "and you don't get any funny business like sap bleeding through wood." Hardie and ABTco products are avail- able preprimed, but Faust puts the mate- rial up raw because he gives a 10-year paint warranty and wants to be sure what kind of primer goes on. "I've seen a lot of leaching come out of masonry when we painted it," he explains, "so we do our own priming to be sure our war- rarity holds up." The other reason Faust prefers to install fiber-cement raw has to do with mildew. He says he likes to put primer and topcoat over caulk, because he's noticed that after a few years the caulk joints on a new house will attract mildew. According to Faust, Houston is so humid that mildew will "grow on anything that stands still," and he wants to avoid any warranty claims over mildewed caulk. Before priming a newly sided build- ing, Faust washes it down with a power washer. "You create a lot of dust when you cut fiber-cement," he says, "and it just cakes on the siding." In addition, if the installer's hands are dirty, hand- prints will show through the paint. After washing, Faust waits until there have been two sunny days to dry the siding out before priming it. "I like the Pittsburgh masonry primer," he says, "which is designed to hold back the alkaline content of the material and give you a uniform sheen." He topcoats it with a 100% acrylic satin finish. Like other contractors in the Houston area, Faust avoids using flat paint, because dirt and mildew are more likely to stick to it than to finishes that have some sheen to them. That's another rea- son why it's so important to do a good priming job, because satin topcoats have a greater tendency to look blotchy than flat ones. According to most manufacturers, you shouldn't use oil-based primer with fiber-cement, although you can use an oil-based topcoat over a latex primer. For a paint job that lasts, follow the paint and siding manufacturers' specs. Although fiber-cement is porous, Faust says he's never had any paint pop when moisture wicked into the raw end cuts. The project manager on one of the sites I visited told me, however, that he's seen moisture wick all the way through raw 4x8 siding panels after a few days of rain (Figure 8). But he didn't think this posed much of a problem as long as the siding is installed over felt and is given a proper paint and caulk job. ~ David Frane is a former finish carpenter and an associate editor at the Journal of Light Construction. Sources of Supply Fiber-Cement Siding & Panels ABT Building Produds Corp. (ABTco) Box 98, Highway 2.68 Roaring River, NC 28669 800/566-2282 Fiber-cement lap siding, fiber-cement panel siding Circle #7 FCP Excelsior Industrial Park P.O. Box 99 Blandon, PA 19510 888/327-0723 Cemplank Circle #8 Vinyl Trim Accessories Tamlyn and Sons 10406 Cash Rd. Houston, TX 77477 800/334-1676 Tamlyn Vinyl Inside Corner; Snapvent soffit vents; flashing; panel connectors Circle #11 Tools & Fasteners Duo-Fast Corporation 11951 S. Quality Dr. Huntley, IL 60142 70~/678-0100 Pneumatic nailing equipment and fasteners Circle #12 James Hardie 26300 La Alameda Suite 250 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 800/942-7343 Hardiplank, Hardipanel, Shingleside Circle #9 MaxiTile Inc. 17141 Kingsview Ave. Carson, CA 90746 800/338-8453 MaxiPlank, MaxiPanel Circle #10 Pacific International Toni and Shear, Ltd. RO. Box 1604 Kingston, WA 98346 800/297-7487 Snapper Lite SS302 cutting tool Circle #13 W.H. Maze Company 100 Church St. Peru, IL 61354 815/223-8290 Hot-dip zinc-coated coil nails Circle #14 JANUARY JLC 1998 August ~ 1998 To~ Fr: Re: Brad Houser Scott Kugler, Associate Planner CITY OF I0 WA CITY 803 S. Summit Street - List of Conditions Discussed at August 1 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting. At the g st meeting Au u of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Commission discussed your proposal for the new building and garages on Lots 1 and 2 of M&W Addition (803 S. Summit Street). The following items were discussed as being appropriate for inclusion as conditions upon the approval of your plans: · Vinyl siding will not be permitted. Wood siding is the preferred material. However, the Commission indicated its willingness to consider the fiber cement composite product discussed at last night's meeting. This will be discussed at Monday night's special meeting after Commission members have had a chance to study this product in use. · There shall be a minimum of 12 inches of exposed foundation, or the appearance of an exposed foundation, between grade and the lowest siding plank, and the porch/patio should be elevated above grade in a similar manner. · The front doors should be wood with a windory or windows. (If the doors offered by John Shaw are not workable, you might want to check the Salvage Barn for an alternative). · The rear deck and stair rail should be painted to match the trim color of the house. · There should be no corner molding or trim around the edges of the chimney. · The front porch/patio columns should match what is shown on the plan, which scales to dimensions of 10 inches on the lower portion and 8 inches on the upper portion. If this is not correct please be prepared to bring in more details on the columns Monday night. · The trim around the windows and the corner boards should be a minimum of 4 inches in width. · The soffit materials should have a bead board type appearance, and should run parallel with the face of the building. Wood would also be an acceptable material. · The exposed lap-width of the siding should be within the range of 3-5 inches. · The garage doors should have a flat finish rather than pressed panels. Garage door materials were not specified. (We have had both flat wood and fiberglass garage doors constructed in our historic districts. I am not sure whether a flat aluminum product is available. Check out the garage at 722 N. Lucas Street as 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET , IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 , (319) 356-5000 , FAX (319) 356-5009 an example that is easily visible from the public alley, although that example has a batten like trim added to it which would not be required of you.) One additional item that I intend to bring up at Monday's meeting is that the windows should have a dark finish, as we discussed earlier. Since these are not wood windows and will not be regularly painted, I think the Commission should be concerned about their color. A dark sash color would be more historically appropriate than white, and should pose little or no additional cost to you. These items can be handled through conditions included in the certificate of appropriateness if approved by the Commission on Monday, or can be incorporated in your plans if revised and submitted prior to Monday's meeting. Please let me know what you intend to do later today. When I get a list of addresses together for the Commission to view the "Hardi-Plank" material in use, I will forward it on to you also. I will also fax a copy of the agenda for Monday night's meeting to you as soon as it is posted. Date: 9/17/98 To: Iowa City Council Re: 803 S.Summit Street As a former Iowa City historic preservation commissioner and the current Executive Director of the Iowa Historic Preservation Alliance, I have several opinions I would like to share regarding the upcoming appeal to the city council concerning the property at 803 S. Summit Street. 1) Construction Materials I understand that the property owner has requested fi'eedom of choice in building materials AND that the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has unanimously rejected the use ofvinyl siding. Vinyl Siding is plastic. The Secretary of Interiors Standards which the historic preservation commission uses as its guideline has been in place for decades and is used as the standard throughout the country. The rejection of plastic covered buildings is not new or radical. Nor has there ever been any notion of acceptance of plastic in historic neighborhoods. The use of plastic in an historic district is an aftrout to its integrity. An owners right to choose any building material is in context to where they are building. When design review is in place under an existing ordinance or covenant, one need only to look around to determine the context of the neighborhood and which building materials will be considered acceptable. In the Summit Street neighborhood one would not have the impression that plastic was the norm in that historic neighborhood. 2) Property Rights By the designation of Summit Street in 1984 as an historic district, residents and future property owners were assured that it was a neighborhood which would be protected through both an historic preservation ordinance and historic preservation commission design review governed by accepted standards of historic preservation. I do not see how the City Council could consider abandoning that commitment to the property owners. 3) Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Our City Historic Preservation Commission has been very successful over the years because of their cautious and consistent judgment based on the Iowa City Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of Interiors Guidelines for Historic Rehabilitation. Due to their training and expertise, I imagine it would require OVERWHELMING evidence of inappropriate procedure or flawed judgment to overtum one of their decisions. that we can depend upon them to make educated, sound and fair recommendations. Sincerely Joyce Barrett 604 Ronalds Street 337-3514 You have, as a body, consistently appointed qtmlified and dedicated commissioners, Iowa City is fL~unate · ' 2 710 South Summit Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Iowa City Council Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: I am writing concerning Brad Houser's appeal of the Certificate of Appropriateness for his duplex project located within the Summit Street historic district. As a resident of Summit Street and a preservation advocate I support the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission on this matter. I would like to ask you to be careful in your deliberations on the matter of siding materials for this project and to recognize the care and expertise that went into the original decision by the HPC. The unanimous vote against vinyl siding seems particularly important to me and is the issue I would like to address. The Historic Preservation commission has worked hard to set a defensible standard against vinyl siding by not allowing it to be used for the rehabilitation of houses within the Summit Street district. It is through the certification process that the HPC has educated individual property owners about the best way to preserve for the sake of the properly, the district, and the community at large. The standards that apply to rehabilitation projects are context specific. In the case of Summit Street, because the historic siding materials are brick and wood, all new additions have been certified, in part, because they are built using one of those historic materials. The Handbook of Historic Preservation in Iowa makes it clear that "the design of new construction should respect the existing buildings in scale, materials, and design of the surroundings. Otherwise the effect is jarring and intrusive." It seems clear that new construction, whether an addition to an existing structure or the addition of a new structure on the street, is to be treated in the same manner. There are no buildings on Summit Street with vinyl siding. A number of properties have other substitute materials which can be painted. These materials cover the original siding and can be removed, revealing the historic building surface. Any synthetic siding applied to an existing historic property can always be removed and it is the practice of Friends of Historic Preservation to encourage this action through grants. At least one Summit Street property owner has used a Friends grant to remove synthetic siding. By doing this a property owner improves his/her property and the district at large. What was once a "potentially contributing" structure is made a "contributing" structure. In the case of a new structure it must start out as a contributing structure; it cannot be metamorphosed into one later. Mr. Houser has expressed concerns about the fairness of the certification process. It is clear to me that the benefits and burdens of living in the Summit Street historic district are spread in an equitable manner and that Mr. Houser has not been singled out for unduly harsh treatment. As previously mentioned, all new construction within the district would be reviewed under the same contextual guidelines. In fact, because Mr. Houser purchased and subdivided his property after the creation of the district he had the advantage of prior notice, an advantage not given to long time Summit Street property owners. The HPC takes its role in the community seriously and works hard to make rehabilitation projects agreeable to everyone. In the balancing act that took place during Mr. Houser's project certification review commission members compromised on a extensive list of items that they deemed less important than siding materials. The Historic Preservation Commission sent a clear message with their unanimous vote against the use of vinyl siding within the Summit Street historic district. They heard expert advice against the use of vinyl siding from Ralph Christian, architectural historian, and Judy McClure, architect, at the State Historical Society of Iowa, and from Dr. Betty Kelly, the commission's resident architectural historian. The commission's membership is broad-based and representative of the community. They are not fanatics. The membership includes a high school principal, a doctor, a lawyer, a student and a person with building industry knowledge. Many commission members also represent a particular historic district, thus offering the perspective of those who live under the benefits and burdens of historic districts. It is important to remember that historic districts exist for the benefit of the community. They improve properly values, foster civic pride and provide a resource for the community and a connection to the past. Summit Street was recently described by a Planning and Zoning Commission member as "the quintessential historic district" in Iowa City. It is an asset to the community that will be further enhanced by the thoughtfully designed, soon -to -be built Summit Street bridge. Do we want the value of that bridge and the district at large to be diminished by allowing a new building to be built in such a way that it detracts, rather than contributes, to the overall character of the district? I hope not. Respectfully, Eleanor Steele FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION P.O. Box 2001, Iowa City, Iowa 52244 17 September 1998 City Council of Iowa City 411 Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: The Board of Friends of Historic Preservation (FHP) would like to add its support to the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding Brad Houser's Summit Street project. We are particularly concerned that vinyl--a synthetic material--not be permitted as the exterior siding on the duplex itself, which will be very visible from the street. While neither the HPC or FHP can prevent vinyl installation on old houses in historic districts, both organizations discourage the use of synthetic materials on properties visible from the street. We also try to educate property owners on the aesthetic, economic, and historical importance of wood. In fact, FHP takes great pleas- ure in giving grants to homeowners to pay for the removal of artificial siding and the restoration of wood siding. Vinyl siding may have its place in new construction in new develop- ments, but it does not have a place on historic Summit Street. Those of us who live in or support Iowa City's historic dis- tricts depend on the HPC to be sympathetic to historic archi- tecture and neighborhoods. We appreciate the work the Commission does to maintain these streetscapes, and we realize that at times compromises are necessary. The Commissioners are hardly known for being purists in their approach and they go out of their way to address the concerns of applicants, as they have in this case. Mr. Houser, however, knew that the land he pur- chased was in a historic district. And not just A historic district, but The Summit Street Historic District--the most visible district in Iowa City, and one of the most important and oldest districts in the state of Iowa. If Mr. Houser did not share the stewardship of Summit Street this his neigh- bors feel so strongly, he should have purchased land elsewhere. Best wishes, Paula Brandt for the Board of Friends of Historic Preservation