Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-18 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2005 CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Jan Weissmiller, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Justin Pardekooper STAFF PRESENT: Chris AckersOn, Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Fran Blanc, Helen Burford, Pat Cincotta, Richard Wayne CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificate of Appropriateness: 800 North Van Buren Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a listed national historic property, a local landmark, and a key, contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District. Terdalkar said the proposed project is for the restoration of the barn on the property. The work includes the replacement of the masonry (stone) foundation with poured concrete foundation and finishing it with plaster to match the existing plaster. He said that the roof will be finished with asphalt shingles, and the missing wood shakes and other damaged wood work would be repaired as necessary. Weitzel said this project was discussed at the Commission's last meeting [due to the lack of quorum conducted as a work session], and the consensus was to approve the project as proposed. McCallum said he felt that the contractor working on this was using good sense. He said this is not an ideal situation, but the proposal is a reasonable one, as it would save the basic structure and general appearance of the barn. Ponto said that the rest of the barn and foundation is stable, but that repair using limestone would not be feasible to achieve a strong and durable foundation. Carlson stated that this is especially problematic because of the steep grade change. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal to reconstruct a barn at 800 North Van Buren Street, as proposed. McCallum seconded the motion..The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 533 South Summit Street. Terdalkar said that this is an application for the replacement of existing wood windows with metal-clad wood windows. He added that this is a contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. Terdalkar said the owner also plans to replace the wood shutters with PVC shutters. Weitzel stated that this item was discussed at the work session, and it was determined that the Commission may not be able to mandate the replacement or removal of the shutters. He said the consensus of the Commission was to offer a recommendation that it would be acceptable to simply remove the shutters but to also recommend that replacement shutters not be made of PVC. Carlson said that he ordinarily would not approve of a wholesale replacement of windows. He said, however, according to the contractor pretty much all of the windows were rotten on the house are rotted. McCallum said that, however, the commission has been approached for suggestions in the past and this issue can be considered as request for recommendation. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 2 Gunn asked if the Commission could regulate the shutters. Weitzel said that because a permit is not required for shutters, the Commission has no enforcement ability with regard to shutters. Maharry said that the shutter replacement should actually not be part of the application. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows at 533 South Summit Street, as described in the application, with a recommendation against the use of shutters, specifically against the use of PVC shutters. McCallum seconded the motion. Brennan said he would like it to be clear that the recommendation is non-binding. Ponto said he felt that the recommendation is clearly non-binding by definition. McCallum withdrew his second of the motion. He stated that he feels it is important for property owners to know their rights but agrees that it is appropriate for the Commission to make recommendations. Gunn seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-2, with Brennan and McCallum voting no. Terdalkar agreed to inform the contractor that the recommendation regarding the shutters is non-binding. 422 Brown Street. Weitzel said this is the second application regarding this project. He said that the first application was approved to the owner's specifications, to allow egress windows on the two sides of the front porch. He said the owner would now instead like to put the egress windows on the front of the porch. Terdalkar said the owner would now like to replace two windows instead of installing two new windows on the sides. He said the proposal is to remove two frames of inoperable windows and replace them with double hung wood windows. Weitzel said that there is a large window well on one side of the porch that would prevent the installation of a window there without grading or some kind of walkway. He said the Commission discussed this at its work session, and the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) also discussed it at its last meeting. Weitzel stated that the recommendation of the DRS was for the installation of four new windows across the front to give unity across the front fa(;ade. He noted that this is a filled porch, therefore there is nothing original to the building here. Weitzel said the DRS proposed the four windows to at least match across the front. Maharry said this project is changing something that is pretty much a puzzle anyway. Weitzel said the owner still wants just the two windows on the front. Maharry said the Commission only has the option of approving or denying the proposal, which is to replace two non-opening windows with opening egress windows. McCallum said the owner is required to have egress windows for rental property, but this situation has been like this for years. Gunn asked if the front windows had separate sashes. Terdalkar said that there are four separate fixed-pane glass openings that appear as two large one-over-one windows. Weitzel commented that it consists basically of eight barn sashes nailed to a frame. McCallum ask.ed what the owner's options would be if this were denied, since he is required to install egress windows. Weitzel said the applicant could go with the previous certificate if this one is not approved. He said the owner could try to work with that or come back with something new. Weitzel stated that the Commission is required to work with the owner but is entitled to have design opinions. He said that if the situation is not immediately life threatening, then the Commission is obligated to work with HIS towards something appropriate here. Maharry said that what is supposed to be a porch here is now two apartments. He said that the two front openings look like windows. Maharry said he always tries to protect what is historic, and this is not. He said that the new proposal would not be a further detraction to the building. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 3 MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a proposal to install egress windows at 422 Brown Street, as proposed, Carlson seconded the motion. Carlson said he could see Maharry's point in that the house is a jumble already. Carlson stated, however, that even though this is not historic, he would like to see unity there, especially on the front fa~;ade, which is the part of the building most visible from the street. Ponto commented that a person looking at the windows now would think they are double hung windows. He said that if one of each set is replaced, it will become obvious that they are not. Wayne, the owner of the house, distributed graphics of what the porch would look like with four replacement windows and with two replacement windows. He said that with the replacement of only two windows, the remaining non-opening windows would flank and support them. Wayne said he is trying to put in egress windows in a manner that is least invasive. He said he would like to try to preserve whatever is there. Wayne said that his reaction to the two twin double hung windows on either side of the center is that it doesn't look good to him. He said it would also be a replacement of four of the five existing openings. Wayne said the openings are almost six feet high and the two sets would not be great looking. He said he thought the best arrangement would be to allow the inner two openings to remain and replace the outer windows with double hung windows. Carlson said the Commission's work is to decide if the four new double hung windows look much better than what the owner has proposed. He said that if the Commission is interested in preserving what Henry Black did, then it could agree to leave the two non-operable openings. McCallum pointed out that the style of Henry Black was to be non-conforming. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1, with Gunn voting no. 404 South Summit Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. He said this project was discussed at the Commission's work session on August 2, 2005. Terdalkar said the project involves demolishing the glass workshed to the east and south, restoring the foundation and basement walls, closing existing openings in the foundation wall, which will be exposed as the work-shed is removed, re-grading the yard, repairing the kitchen foundation, construction of new piers under the sleeping porches, and restoring the chimney, including tuckpointing. He stated that the work is proposed to be completed in three phases and that the potential restoration of the sleeping porches will be considered in the third phase. Blanc, the owner of the house, introduced her contractor, Pat Cincotta. Blanc said she was available to answer any questions about the project. Weitzel said the DRS looked at the project. He stated that the workshop on the back doesn't fit the style of the house and was added on later. Weitzel said that the artist, Mauricio Lasansky, and his family lived in the house at one time and put on the addition, which was probably used primarily by one of the sons for his work as a metal sculptor. Weitzel said that the workshop was built in or after 1952 and is therefore on the 50-year cusp. Weitzel pointed out that the workshop doesn't match the house but said with that the historic significance needs to be looked at. He said the issue of significance and the association Lasansky was discussed with the State Historical Society office. From what he understood, Lasansky did not live or work from there. Weitzel said that he received a comment from Barbara Mitchell, Architectural Historian of SHPO, who said that because Lasansky is still alive and productive, it is not possible yet to know his impact. Weitzel stated that the sleeping porches and kitchen are additions to the house. He said that the rest of the house is in the Greek revival style, with Italianate additions on the front and side. Carlson said that his research showed that Lasansky bought the house in the 1950s and may have lived there with his family. He said that his understanding was that Lasansky's sons were the primary users of the workshed addition. Carlson said that the years 1950s through 60s appear to be the period during which Lasansky did some of this most important work. He said he did not know if the Commission should refrain from discussion of the significance of the workshop just because Lasansky is still active and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 4 productive in his 90s. Weitzel said that it appears from the letter of Barbara Mitchell that the criteria state that in case of a living artist it is too early to evaluate the historic significance. Blanc agreed that Lasansky is a major artist, but she said that there have been a lot of major artists who have lived in Iowa City. She said the focus should be on the difference between the significant artwork and the significance of what the Historic Preservation Commission devotes time to achieving for the community. Blanc distributed a letter from Mrs. SIoan, written in 1972, for Margaret and Emil Trott, to prevent demolition of the house. Blanc said that SIoan moved into the house in 1910. Blanc said that there was a major fire in the. house in 1919, before the sleeping porches were added on. She said that at one time there was a large wraparound porch on the northwest side of the house. Blanc stated that the letter shows that the current kitchen was not the original kitchen but was on the north side of the house, and there was direct access from the kitchen to the yard. Blanc said that Lasansky moved here from South America and had six children. She stated that in later years, the sons were in the house exclusively. Blanc said that Lasansky had print shops at The University of Iowa and at his summer house in Maine, but not in the house on Summit Street. Blanc said that what was built as a workshop was probably for the benefit of his sons. Blanc stated that there are eight steel frames on each side [of the workshop], and the rest is brick, but not good brick. She said that the walls are soft red brick, and the house is made of soft brick stone. Blanc said that the house was a fraternity in 1927 and was later converted into three apartments. She stated that it again became a single-family home, probably one or two families before the Lasanskys lived there. Blanc stated that there was once a turret on the northwest quadrant of the house. She said that holes were punched out, and there are I-beams under the porch. Blanc stated that the roof is made of a barn material. She said that she could not believe that Lasansky's art work and his association with the house and the demolition of the workshop are related. She would think that state of dilapidation of the workshop is a result of his efforts to construct this addition without any professional help. Weitzel said that preserving the building would be an effort to preserve all facets of his life. Blanc said that Lasansky sold the house to a developer, who planned to tear it down and construct apartments. Blanc said it was the efforts of the neighbors that prevented the tearing down of the house. She said she did not think that Lasansky would have placed great value on the house. Maharry asked Blanc if she had an opinion as to whether or not the sleeping porches should remain on the house. Blanc responded that it is hard to decide until the project gets past a certain point. She said the nicest thing would be to keep the porches. Blanc stated that even 30 years ago, there was already a compromising situation on the southeast portion. Blanc said there are options with regard to the porches. She said she could try to bring them back, but then all of the windows would have to be redone. Blanc said that the porches could be taken off, but then the house and the roofline would have to be brought back. She said another option would be to rebolster and reframe the porches but not enclose them. Blanc said she really could not answer the question yet about what she would like to see done with the porches. Maharry said that her decision is then partly based on what the Commission decides about the workshop. He said it is his opinion that the sleeping porches should be removed. Maharry said that they would be very hard and costly to redo. He added that they are not original to the building and not consistent with the style of the building. Cincotta suggested that the best thing to do would be to bring it back to a porch and rail. He asked in case this option is not acceptable would the commission approve restoring the porch without the windows. Cincotta said that the floor is gone, the roof is okay, the panels are savable, but the structure on the inside is rotted. He said that the porch is supported by two I-beams that are also part of the workshop roof. Cincotta said there would be a small cost to construct new supports for the porch when the workshop is removed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 5 Blanc said that there are three stages to the project and immediate need the partly collapsed structure, regarding the exterior to the east. She said that the porches could be stabilized and dealt with later. Maharry asked when the porches were constructed. Blanc stated that they were added on after 1919. Weitzel stated that the main priority of HIS is the workshop. He said that the next priority would be the sleeping porches and then the doorway. He asked Blanc for her preferences. Blanc said that she has received a directive from the City in that regard. Weitzel said that the Historic Preservation Commission is part of that process. Blanc stated that her intent is to comply before the end of the work season. She said the first work would be to replace the soffits and tear down the back addition. Weitzel said that the soffit replacement would be acceptable, as long as it was done with wood. He said the Commission should now focus on the workshop and the proposal to remove it. Blanc said she was working through this and hoped to get the workshop torn down. Weitzel said that, per the city Code, HIS should have talked to the Commission before issuing the notice to the applicant. The commission could then consult with the applicant and recommend appropriate solutions within 30 days of such communication. He said that if Blanc decides that she would like to have the porches removed from the back of the house, that is a different issue. Blanc said that the porches are part of phase three so that the Commission could look at the first two phases now to keep it simple. Weitzel said that would be acceptable if the rest of the house could be kept stable over the winter. Cincotta responded that it could. Weitzel said that a decision would not then have to be made now regarding the sleeping porches. Cincotta said that right now, a permit is needed for the soffit, the chimney work, and demolition of the workshop. He said that phase three could be removed from the application for now. Gunn asked about the exterior wall behind the porch. Cincotta said that it is still there however, some of the windows and door openings on this fa(;ade have been closed/filled in with glass block. He said that the plan is to change the doors to windows and do something to the roofline. Cincotta said that something needs to be done but that what is there would be very expensive to restore. Weitzel asked how much of that addition is tied together if it was all built at the same time. Blanc said that not much was tied together. Cincotta said that he would need to install piers to prop up the sleeping porches and remove the workshop. Maharry said this project really hinges on whether the glass workshop is historic. He said that if it is not, then the rest of this is a no brainer. He said this hinges on if the area is worth preserving. Maharry said this is either an application for a certificate for demolition or a certificate for approval of building plans. McCallum said the significance of the artist is at issue. He said he does not see any overwhelming evidence that says that the workshop should be saved, and he would like to help the owner get started on this project. Maharry said the issue is whether the evidence presented shows the workshop to be historic or not, and the Commission must decide if there is enough evidence to show it to be historic or enough evidence to contradict a historic status. He said that there does not appear to be enough evidence presented either way. Weitzel said the period of significance is considered to be a moving window, at least for National Register properties. He said the window continues to move forward in time, which would make the 50-year window for significance relevant to issues before 1955 at this point. Brennan asked if a non-contributing property would then become contributing when it becomes over 50 years old. Maharry said that only if it had a reason to become contributing would it become so. Weitzel said it would need to fit within the context of the district. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 6 Carlson suggested that the Commission did not have enough information yet to make a determination about the workshop. Maharry said that Lasansky is well known in Iowa but perhaps not well known outside of the State. Weitzel and Gunn stated that the significance can be a State-wide significance. Maharry said he didn't know if the fact that this is Lasansky's hometown makes a difference in the significance. Weitzel said that the only procedural difference with this application is that it was initiated by a City action. He said the item could be deferred to gather more information. Carlson stated that he would like to have the full 30 days from the time of the application, which Terdalkar stated was submitted on July 25th. Blanc stated that it is already late in the building season and said she would like to get started as soon as possible. MOTION: McCallum moved to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for a proposal for 404 South Summit Street to August 25th, in order to determine the significance of a former occupant. Maharry seconded the motion, McCallum said he is satisfied that the information and the letters show that there is not enough significance related to the workshop to delay a vote on this. Carlson said the issue is whether Lasansky is important, not whether the workshop per se is significant. Maharry said that while the artist is living, it seems that the artist would not be deemed significant enough to preserve the workshop. Weitzel said there are two related issues: whether there is enough information to make a decision on the significance and whether there is still enough integrity to the building to preserve it. Carlson stated that even though the workshop is in terrible condition, the integrity of it is still reasonably high. Cincotta stated that there is nothing left to the workshop that is useful. He said that the foundation and the timber are unusable. Blanc said that the workshop was a Rube Goldberg job. She said that Lasansky had no intent to preserve the building. Carlson referred to the criteria to decide whether this was worth preserving or not. He said, leaving aside the fact that Lasansky is still productive in his nineties, he assumed that one could still say that this is significant. Weitzel said the criteria include the word "generally." Carlson said that when the importance of an artist is considered, his studios are considered most important, but also to be considered are where his most important studio is, where he lived, and the integrity and of the surviving buildings associated with him. Maharry suggested that someone else would know what the workshop was built for and its significance. Carlson added that the Commission would not approve tearing down a porch on a famous writer's house, just because he did his writing in another room. Brennan commented that the workshop seems to be structurally unsound and unusable. Weitzel added that if the integrity of the building is so bad that it cannot be used, then the significance doesn't matter. Gunn agreed and said that if it is irretrievable, the significance doesn't mean much. The motion to defer failed on a vote of 1-7, with Carlson voting yes. Carlson said there is not enough information for approval. Weitzel said that Barbara Mitchell's comments indicate that Criteria B and the integrity issue weigh against the significance issue. Terdalkar suggested that the Commission document the building before it is demolished. Maharry agreed that the workshop could be photographed, and the dimensions and description determined. He said this would not be demolishing anything of architectural significance. Terdalkar said that he thinks if the applicant wanted to build the same structure now, the commission may not approve such addition. He asked should a later addition such as the dilapidated workshop be saved if it is even possibly damaging the original structure. Carlson said the historic association is worth looking at. He said, however, that he is in the minority on this issue and suggested that the Commission vote to approve or disapprove. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 7 Terdalkar referred to item three in phase one regarding closing off existing door passages in foundation walls with cement block masonry. Weitzel asked how much of the doors will be visible? Cincotta said the upper half, portion above grade will be visible. He said that it might look like a window with an archway. He said he would try to blend it with fieldstone. Blanc stated that the three on the east would not be visible. Cincotta said that he would use brick to fill in, if acceptable. Maharry said that the Commission will probably require skirting underneath the lower porch so that probably none of it will be seen. Cincotta said that one mlght see upper half on the back side. Gunn asked if the applicant could explain about the archway openings. Cincotta said that some are original but not the two that Lasansky did. He said he could do them all in stone or at least the part that shows. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve phases one and two for the project at 404 South Summit street, including the demolition of the glass house workshop, with the modification of item number three in phase one to use rubble stone as a filler above grade level for all visible areas. Weitzel pointed out that no action is to be taken regarding the sleeping porches at this time. Brennan seconded the motion. Gunn said he would vote in favor of this project, as he feels it is necessary and reasonable. He said that the demolition of a structure that is unusable and irretrievable is acceptable, regardless of its historic status. Weitzel agreed that this would be a different story if the roof had not collapsed. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1, with Carlson votin.q no. 922 East College Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a non-contributing structure in the College Hill Historic District that is an apartment building. He said the project involves the removal of window openings on the ground floor to install patios and to replace a mansard roof with vinyl. Terdalkar said that the proposal also includes installation of metal rails at grade to protect the wells created for the patio doors. He said that egress is provided by other windows. Weitzel said that the DRS discussed this, and the consensus was that the members would like to see uniform facades on buildings so that the impression on the neighborhood is less haphazard looking. He added that the DRS agreed that the intent of infill to have balconies on the side elevations to. Maharry said that he would recuse himself from discussion on this item and would speak as a citizen. Weitzel said he would recommend against having window wells along the parking area. He said the DRS also discussed the possibility of disallowing vinyl. Weitzel said that in this situation, it is probably a moot point. He added, however, that if this were a new infill construction in the neighborhood, the Commission could deny the use of vinyl. Weitzel said that the guidelines state that the Commission 'may' allow exceptions. He said his point is that if this were new, infill construction, the guidelines say that it is within the Commission's purview to deny the use of vinyl if it had a reason. Weitzel said that he, however, has not made up his mind to apply it in this case. Carlson said that Section 3.2 applies to overall exceptions. Maharry said that they are about not patios or balconies, just doors and windows. Gunn referred to Section 3.2, and Weitzel said that section 3.2 applying to the materials to be used. Carlson said that 3.3 allows an exception for non-historic properties and states that the Historic Preservation Commission "may" allow the exceptions and it is not binding on the commission to allow non-historic materials. Gunn pointed out that this property is in a conservation district. Weitzel said the Commission could grant an exception here to allow vinyl but doesn't have to. McCallum said that vinyl was allowed for the property in the historic district down the street in an earlier instance. Weitzel said it can be an exception if the Commission has a reason to allow an exception. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 8 McCallum said that overall, this would be a general improvement over what is there now. He said that the change of the rail style is an improvement. Maharry said this building faces a single-family home that is already there. He said the commission should not automatically approve all changes. Weitzel said that the intent of the infill guidelines is to not allow balconies on side elevations so that single-family dwellings are protected from nuisance such as noise etc. He stated that, in general, balconies are not allowed on the sides of buildings. Weitzel said that if this were new construction, this couldn't be done. He stated that the east side doesn't have balconies, but the west side does. Maharry asked if there would be a change in the east side fa~;ade. Terdalkar responded that there may not be enough room to add balconies on the east side where there is a driveway. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a proposal for 922 East College Street as proposed, but without the lower level patio doore and wells and with the provision that all of the siding used to replace the mansard areas be consistent on the entire building. McCallum said that this would be a major improvement overall. Weissmiller seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0~ with Maharry abstaining. MINUTES FOR JULY 14, 2005 AND AUGUST 2, 2005. July 14, 2005. Carlson said he had typographical corrections to submit for items on page five. He also stated that in the last paragraph before the final motion on page five, in the first line, the word "agreed" should be changed to "...took the applicant's word..." Carlson said that in the second to last paragraph on page five, in the first sentence, the words "saw and shingle" should be changed to "sawn shingle" MOTION: Maharry moved to approve the July 14, 2005 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission, as amended. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. August 2, 2005. Maharry said it should be noted near the top in the headings area that this was a work session. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve the August 2, 2005 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission, as amended. Maharry seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. OTHER: Maharry said he received an e-mail from a neighbor of the property at 420 South Lucas. Terdalkar stated that the owner received a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the roof but did not apply for a permit. He said the roof work has already been completed. Maharry asked if there has been an appeal of the Commission's decision regarding 946 Iowa Avenue, and Terdalkar said there has not. Burford said that the proposed new zoning code would change the CB-2 zone to multi-use zoning in the conservation districts. Miklo said the proposed zoning code would eliminate CB-2 zoning and would therefore rezone CB-2 properties to other appropriate zones, given the surroundings. He stated that there are two controversial areas: the area to the east of downtown that is proposed for the Mixed Use Zone and the area north of downtown in the vicinity of Pagliai's Pizza. Burford said this change would affect older neighborhoods. Bur[ord asked if the Commission would want to issue an opinion regarding changing the character of these neighborhoods. Miklo said that since this was not included in the Commission's agenda as an item to be discussed and voted on, it would be best to proceed as individuals instead of taking action as a Commission. Maharry said that the Commission could go before the City Council while the new zoning code is being Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 9 considered. Weitzel asked Burford, and she agreed, to draft something for the Commission to consider at a later meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:32. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:lpcdlminuteslHPC12005/hpcO8-15-O5.doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 rerltl Name Expires 1/8 1/13 2/10 2/15 3/10 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/2 6/9 6/30 7/14 8/15 M. Brennan 3/29/08 .................... X X X X X X O O/E X R. Carlson 3/29/07 ........ X X X X X X O/E X X O/E X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X O O X X O O O O/E O/E O/E O/E M. Gunn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X X X X X X .................... X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X ' X X X X X O X X X X X X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 O/E X X O O O/E O O O O O X X O J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X X .................................... J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E X X X O/E X T. Weitzel 3/29/08 O/E O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member Approved ~ MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL AUGUST 25, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Justin Pardekooper, Jan Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PP,ESENT: Helen Burford, Rob Dipps, Bill Dostal, Jan Dostal, Ann Estin, Jim Estin, Klm Hanrahan, Ned Wood CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Burford said that the Planning and Zoning Commission took a vote on the new zoning plan at its last meeting. She said that any kind of action or recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission is really being put into the public arena to be brought as arguments to City Council. Burford said that now the Commission has an opportunity to discuss specific things that have been brought up through this process that may have an impact on older communities and older neighborhoods and go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and have a statement and request some changes. She said it won't happen before the plan goes to the City Council, and it may look like the process has ended but it hasn't. Burford said there have been good discussions on the part of the Commission, and she hoped that this reprieve would prompt the Commission to bring up these things as part of its future agenda. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: 435 Grant Street. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the proposal is to build a back porch on the house. Terdalkar said that after discussions with the Design Review Subcommittee (DP, S), there was a revised proposal. He said the revision shows a central porch with one side to be built with a pergola. Terdalkar said the size would be about 20 to 22 feet by ten feet wide. He said he believes the applicant agrees with the DP,S recommendations. Terdalkar said that one issue that needs to be addressed is the proposed decking material, EON, which the applicant describes as a composite material. Weitzel stated that the last page of the application is actually the plan that the DP,S came up with, and everything else before that is off the table. He said that in the past the Commission has approved a plastic/wood composite material but not an all-plastic decking material. Hanrahan, the owner of the house, showed a sample of the composite material. She said she is very flexible, because she wants the porch to look like it was meant to be with the house. Hanrahan said she was considering the composite material for Iow maintenance purposes. Maharry asked if part of this would be exposed to the elements. Weitzel showed the current DRS proposal. He said that because this is a corner lot, there are setback requirements similar to a front yard. Weitzel said the decking would be just the lower level. Ponto asked how high the decking would be off the ground. Hanrahan said that she thought it would be about 12 inches. Terdalkar said he thought it should be as Iow as possible, because of the basement windows. He said that if the decking is high, it cannot be within eight feet of the basement window. Terdalkar said he would see this as about six inches above grade, and the decking below the pergola can be just a big bigger. Weitzel said that it can be at grade. Terdalkar said that if the pergola is detached from the structure, then the window wells can be built around there. He said the new proposal shows a pergola as sort of a porch with railings. Terdalkar stated Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 2 that the pergola would not be attached to the house, but the central porch would be attached so that water can be drawn from the roof. He said that the roof can have minimal slope for a flat roof, to drain off the water. Weitzel said the DRS was concerned about the decorative effect of the eave coming down. He said that after looking at that, the DRS realized that it would be really hard to attach something right to the fascia there, because it's projecting quite a ways from the actual structural members, because of the eaves. Weitzel said that is why the DRS is suggesting detaching the whole thing. He asked Hanrahan if she were happy with the revised proposal, and she confirmed this. Ponto asked Hanrahan if she plans to paint the upright posts. Hanrahan replied that she thought she probably would. She said that she chose not to have green treated lumber because she wants to paint it to be consistent with the trim on the house. Weitzel said another option, if Hanrahan uses the pressure- treated wood, is to wait until it grays and then stain it. He said there is an opaque, white stain available that looks like paint or whitewash. Maharry asked if the DRS resolved the issue of the composite material for the decking. Weitzel said the Commission has not approved this material in the past. Hanrahan pointed out that if the Commission has approved a different material, she would not mind changing. Weitzel said there is a material called Trex and similar products that look a lot like what Hanrahan has proposed, but they are paintable and are a little more like wood. He said the Commission has approved that material. Weitzel said the material approved by the Commission is a polyethylene/sawdust mix, and Trex is simply one brand of the material. McCallum stated that it looks like painted wood. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed revision from the Design Review Subcommittee for the addition of a porch at 435 Grant Street, with the provision that the deck boards be of a plastic/wood composite or wood. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Weitzel asked Hanrahan if she wanted the option of taking the proposal for a full pergola to the Board of Adjustment by filing for a special exception. Hanrahan said she is still considering that option but is waiting until spring to decide. Weitzel said the other option was discussed by the DRS until the zoning requirement was pointed out. Carlson said the DRS was just looking at the footprint of the original proposed porch and looking at how to get the same square footage with something more acceptable. McCallum said that this looks more balanced and said he would support this. Weitzel agreed that it looks more balanced and is more like the original plan, but it covers up more of the back of the building. He said that neither proposal actually covers a lot of the building. Carlson agreed and said that they are both detached from the house. Weitzel said the structures are separate, but the roof connects enough to direct water off the roof onto the covered part. He said the pergola does not touch the structure. Carlson said this is a fairly Iow impact solution. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the option of having the full pergola for the project at 435 Grant Street. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 415 Clark Street. Dipps said that he is the builder for this project and works for Mitchell Phipps Building. He introduced Bill and Jan Dostal as the owners of the house. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Clark Street Conservation District. He said the proposal is for an addition of about 24 feet by 23 feet. Terdalkar said there are some things that need to be addressed: the window proportions and placement, the window material, the foundation material, the existing vent stack for kitchen exhaust that would be reattached, the roofline, and the massing of the new addition. Dipps said the plan is incorrect; he said that the vent is a chimney for a wood burning fireplace. Dipps said that the owners would like to reuse the existing large, four-panel window in the back. He said that when the new addition is put on, it will have a roofline that comes out to the edge of the garage. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 3 Dipps said that it will still have the metal railing, which is the first thing one would see, and behind that one would actually see siding to match the house, not shingles. Weitzel referred to the sketch that the DRS came up with. He said the DRS had a number of concerns with the plan, one of which was the alteration of the existing window, the dormer, because the dormers are so unique and characteristic of this house. Bill Dostal said that in terms of the back window, there is nothing visible from the street. Dipps said the plan is not to change the dormer but is to just shorten the window. Bill Dostal said he likes the window in its entirety, but it is something they would have to sacrifice if they want the addition. Jan Dostal said they love the house and have lived there since 1976. She said they have figured every angle that they could to try to get this to make the house look the way it was and to conform to the house as it was. Jan Dostal said this was the best they could come up with, and she thinks it is a good plan. Maharry asked the Dostals if, when they were working up the plans, they consulted the preservation handbook to see what guidelines they would have to work under. Bill Dostal said that they did not. He said they did know that their house was in a conservation district and were in favor of it, because they were concerned about the potential of commercial development in the neighborhood. Jan Dostal said that a lot of people living on Clark Street have had additions to the backs of their houses and haven't seemed to have had a problem. Carlson said the concern is not with the addition itself but is with what the addition looks like and making sure that it conforms more to the look of the house. Bill Dostal said the big window has been there since 1960. Dipps said that it is four windows mulled together. Bill Dostal said that the addition where the window is located was put on in the late 50s or early 60s. He said the window was a replacement of a window that was similar to it, with the same hole and same design. Weitzel said the concerns include loss of the lower portion of the dormer window, the spacing balance and proportion of the fenestration on the addition, and the chimney pipe, which the DRS had not realized was existing. He said the DRS drawing reflects a design that fits the style of the house a little better. Weitzel said the parapet would conceal the pitched roof and would leave the window intact. He said the drawing also rearranges the windows as they are shown on the plan. Weitzel said the DRS thought it would look better to have a central bar spacing two central windows rather than the large one with the four panes, because at the time the house was built, that is what it would have looked like. Jan Dostal said she did not think it would matter on the back of the house. She said that in the backyards of the people who have added on, the additions do not look like the front of the house. Gunn asked when the additions were put on, as this has been a conservation district for five to six years. He said many of the additions were put on before the conservation district designation. Jan Dostal said one was put on just recently. Gunn said there are additions put on all the time, but if they come through the Commission, they will look like they belong with the period of the construction of the house. He said that a major addition should fit with the original house, not with the 1960s addition. Weitzel said the Commission would like to see something that is more sympathetic to the existing house and that reflects the character of the unique house. He said the house is very unique and is a French- style house that is a very late, eclectic revival building. Weitzel said a 1950s addition doesn't do a lot to add to that house and may even detract from it. He said that adding on further to a 1950s addition only would serve to further detract from the look of the house. Weitzel said the Commission would want to make it look nice. He agreed that most of that addition area cannot be seen from the street, but the neighbors can see it, and someone walking by could see parts of it. Weitzel stated that the Secretary of the Interior Standards and the guidelines don't really make a specific distinction for rear elevations on buildings. He said that the fact that it cannot be seen from the street doesn't weigh really heavily on the Commission's decision. Weitzel said the Commission's job is to try to make these things match the house as it looks. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 4 Bill Dostal said that the window placement is really designed around use and the placement of furniture. Weitzel said the Commission looks at the balance and symmetry of window placement. He said that if the use of the room or layout of furniture in the room is changed, then the window might have to be changed. Dipps asked if it is an issue for the Commission as to whether a window is a casement window or a double hung window. Weitzel responded that it is a minor issue, although the Commission would prefer to have double hung windows. Dipps said there is one casement window that is original to the house. Weitzel said the rest are double hung so that the Commission might want to see a similar proportion in that regard. Dipps said the owners would like to use the four-paneled window but would not be opposed to using double hung windows in the other locations. Dipps said that on the north side of the house, there is a railing all the way around the garage. He said there is something drawn on the DRS plan that goes clear back to the back of the addition. Weitzel said that is the parapet, a Iow wall that would conceal the Iow-pitched roof behind it. Dipps said he did not think that would look good. He said it would not conform with the original design of the house and that it would not be in keeping with the design of the house at all. Weitzel said that it is something that would exist on a wing of a house of this style. He said that it would keep from truncating the window by having a lower-pitched roof. Jan Dostal said they wanted a higher pitched roof with an overhang so that they would not have water problems. She said the roof is not a good design. Bill Dostal said that the garage roof has had a habitual water problem. Carlson said the reason the DRS proposed the pitched roof and the parapet wall was because the flat roof addition would be the most appropriate to this house, but the DRS did not want to make the owners have another flat roof addition, as it could cause maintenance problems. He said that this was the solution to allow the pitched roof but also to give the appearance from the street of a flat roof. Dipps said the main part of the house has a pitched roof. Weitzel said that the addition's pitch does not match the pitch of the original roof in any way. He added that French houses of this style would have additions that would be a sort of sunroom that would be a square wing off the house. Maharry said that there seems to be a lot of decisions that need to be made on this particular project. He said that the Commission could vote on the proposal, but he was not confident that the outcome would be positive for the applicants. Bill Dostal said that this project is becoming more expensive every week that it does not move forward. Maharry said the Commission is frustrated by the fact that the guidelines and recommendations are not considered when the plans are being made and while the money is being invested in plans. He said that is why the Commission is trying to get the word out and why the Commission sent letters in February to all property owners who would be required to abide by the guidelines. Weitzel said that there needs to be more communication, and he did not know if it could be done at the current meeting. He asked the owners if they would be amenable to deferring this item. Jan Dostal said they did not have much time. Maharry said the Commission could vote on this item, but he thought it would be voted down. Dipps said that the issues need to be discussed; otherwise he will leave the meeting not knowing what needs to be done. Jan Dostal said she was unwilling to defer the proposal. She suggested considering the remaining applications first and then coming back to her application. Carlson suggested that the proposal be tabled until a later meeting, as there are too many issues to resolve. Weitzel noted that the applicants wanted a decision to night. MOTION: Maharry moved to table the certificate of appropriateness for a proposal for 415 Clark Street and to consider it later in the meeting. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1, with Carlson voting no. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 5 1016 East College Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a key-contributing structure in the East College Historic District. He said that the applicant has applied for a certificate of appropriateness after replacing wood stairs on a front porch. Terdalkar said that because of this replacement, the owner is required by the Building Code to install a railing. Weitzel said that the DRS recommended a simple, black pipe railing. Wood, the owner of the house, said he would prefer to make the railing minimal. He said that because this is a beautiful wooden rail and porch, he would like to make it out of wood. Wood said he would like to make it as simple as possible and have it be a simple railing coming down to something like just a four by four. Weitzel asked if Terdalkar contacted Wood about providing a design for the railing. Wood stated that he was contacted but did not have time to come up with plans. He showed a sketch of what he had in mind, which showed a very small board that the rail would land on. Wood said it would be a simple two by four that would be trimmed nicely but would come down and land on the bottom tread on the side, where there would be a short post to catch the railing. He said that because this is a wooden porch, that is the material he wanted to use. Weitzel said that a metal railing is the most neutral thing that can be built. He said that it has no style unto itself, it blends into the background, it doesn't call attention to itself, and doesn't try to mimic anything on the house that wouldn't have been there, because these houses didn't have rails. Weitzel said the Commission has to consider what a railing would look like on the house if one would have been built. Wood said that the railing itself would be about the dimensions of a two by four. Terdalkar said that the railing itself has to be grippable, according to the Building Code. Weitzel said that the Code that is being enforced is the IRC Code, and the brochure from the Building Department shows the three acceptable profiles, which are very limited and very non-historic. He said that the Commission was not consulted before the Building Department started enforcing this, and apparently it is being enforced retroactively for railings that the Commission had already approved. Weitzel said that is why the black pipe railing comes to mind as something that meets the Building Department guidelines and doesn't attract attention. Burford said she knew that the Building Department was following the International Building Code. She asked if, however, there was something in the Building Code that made provisions for historic structures. Weitzel said he thought there was something like that in the Building Code and said that there can also be local amendments to that. He said the main point is that the Commission has not been consulted about this, and the Building Department is enforcing it without the Commission's consultation. Weitzel said that technically if work was done on the stairs and it needed a permit, the owner should have come before the Commission. Wood said he expected to just have to replace the tread when he started the project. Weitzel said it is relatively new that the Building Department is enforcing building permits for anything with four stair heights, including the top stair being the porch. Weitzel said that the DRS felt that the owner would basically need a really wide thing with elaborate vase- like spindles to match the porch. He said that anything less than that would not have the right look. Wood said he would like to keep this as simple as possible. Carlson said that he thought a two by four would look flimsy compared to the porch. He said that this is a great porch, and a painted wood surface would detract from what is there, whereas a black pipe rail would be hidden and would not be as obvious. Gunn said that the pipe rail would not have to be black; it could be painted the color of the porch. Wood said that the color is not the issue; he would just really like to use wood. Gunn said he had not seen anything that would be an appropriate wood railing for this house. Wood said that the length of the railing would be relatively short so that it would not be flimsy. Weitzel said, however, that it would give the appearance of being flimsy. He said that it would be a minor piece of wood compared to the massive, grand sweeps on the porch railing. Maharry said the Commission really needs a tangible design to approve. Ponto said that it could be as simple as a sketch. Gunn said that it could be a photograph of an existing railing. Wood asked if he could request to have a simple railing, but if later he really wanted to have a wood railing he could come back before the Commission. Weitzel confirmed this. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 6 MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a project at 10t6 East College Street with the condition that a simple pipe railing be used. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 1039 East College Street. Terdalkar said that this is a key-contributing structure in the East College Historic District. He said that the proposal involves the replacement and repair of windows. Maharry said that Ann Estin, one of the owners of the property, contacted him regarding the guidelines and what the Commission has traditionally looked for in replacement windows. He said that he informed her that the Commission would like, as much as possible, to have windows be repaired. Maharry recommended that she also include photographs of the window deterioration. Ann Estin said that she and her husband, Jim, will be moving into this house in November and want to do some remodeling projects before they move in. She stated that the house was originally built in the late 19th century and had a really significant renovation in 1938. Ann Estin said that the house was originally a Queen AnneNictorian. Ann Estin said that one of her goals is to preserve as much as possible of the old house but to also get some more mechanical and practical objectives served at the same time. She said that they have been told that the windows have significant deterioration, primarily dry rot, but the mortise and tendon joints at the corners are okay in some cases and in other cases would involve milling new pieces to actually construct a new window. Ann Estin said it will be difficult to know for certain until the windows are taken apart exactly how extensive the damage is. Ann Estin said one of the practical concerns is that the windows be weather-tight and airtight. She said they would also like the possibility of ventilation, particularly in the bedrooms and the bathrooms. Ann Estin said the structure has screens and storms throughout the house that they would like to continue to use. She said that to balance those goals, they would like to preserve, even if it means rebuilding the sash from scratch. Ann Estin said that most of the windows on the north and the west sides would be rebuilt, even if it means rebuilding from scratch; this would refer to windows one, two, three, four, and five. She said that they would keep windows nine, ten, and eleven. Ann Estin said that from the rear, eleven and twelve are modern windows. She said that there is a casement window in the middle that they would like to make match the others. Ann Estin said that is the only window for which they would want to replace the whole thing. She said that they would leave window eleven and replace window twelve. Ann Estin said that window thirteen is in the cellar stairway. She said that window fourteen is a bathroom window that they would like to replace. Ann Estin said that on the second floor, window seventeen is a tiny window in a closet that they would like to keep. She said that they would like to also keep windows eighteen and nineteen. Ann Estin said that upstairs, they would like to keep window twenty-seven. She said that results in a total of 15 of the 27 windows in the house that they would propose to repair, as needed. Weitzel said that a permit is not needed for repair, although the Commission can give technical advice. Ann Estin said that on window number six, the window seat overlaps the bottom rail so that the window cannot be opened, and the top rail is in bad shape from people trying to open the window. Ann Estin said they would not mind returning a single-hung window with ropes and weights, but the window that is there is not very practical for this purpose. She said that it is just a single pane. Ann Estin said that is why window six does not seem like a straightforward rebuild situation. Ann Estin said that windows seven and eight are of similar dimensions to some of the windows in the front, although they are in worse shape. She said that on the first floor, it is on the windows in the back that they would want to be able to at least have the possibility of a sash replacement. Ann Estin said that besides that, the windows are on bedrooms and bathrooms, so that they would want to use safety glass and also use the windows for ventilation. Ann Estin said that the other issue upstairs is the window next to the back door and on each side in the back portion of the upstairs. She said there are four windows that have had metal jamb liners installed and the windows cut down to work with the jamb liners, but they are not very effective and don't really Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 7 work. Ann Estin said that for those windows on the back of the house, they would like to do sash replacements, because the practical, functional issues there are more important in the balance of things than they are in the front of the house. Ann Estin said that the windows they would like to replace are marked on the document as windows six, seven, eight, fourteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, and twenty- six, and they would also like to replace the casement window, number twelve. Weitzel said that the window opening would obviously have to be modified for window twelve, and Ann Estin agreed. Ann Estin said that they would like to trim window eleven to match the other windows. Ann Estin said that they would like to keep the old screen windows, and she understood that one could put storm windows in for a combination storm/screen, but it seems that a better thing to do for the house would be to do the sash replacements on the inside and maintain the storms and screens. Weitzel said it depends on the window, its style, age, and condition. Jim Estin said that there is a fairly large difference in looking at the windows and looking at the screens. He said that from the outside, it is clear that it is the screens that give the windows their look, more than anything else. Ann Estin said that the last photograph of those included in the application shows that all that is seen is the storm window. Weitzel said it appears that at least some of the windows have been modified in a bad way. He said that unfortunately the jamb liner installation altered the original sash. Ann Estin said that refers to windows twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-seven. She said that they will have to deal with this on window twenty-seven, which has the Plexiglas lower sash and the jamb liners but an upper sash that really needs to be kept. Maharry asked if the style of windows will be changed on any of these. Ann Estin said that she thinks that the existing windows are double hung, and every window they have proposed to install is a double hung window. Jim Estin said that he did not think that the upper sashes work on any of the windows. He said that he assumed that with the oldest windows, they will be lucky to get the bottoms working with ropes and will probably close up and block off the upper ones. Carlson stated that if it does not change the exterior appearance, it is acceptable to the Commission. Carlson asked about the proposal for window six, the cottage window in the living room. Ann Estin said that they would like to get the bottom sash to actually move. She said that it will only go up the 20 inches that it has to move. Jim Estin said that one option is to secure the upper sash as it is. He said that they will have to make a new bottom sash regardless, so that if the Commission doesn't approve sash replacement, they will have to have one made. He said that ideally what they would like to do is to get a thermal sash that can use cords. Jim Estin said that they may have to rebuild the channel enough to do that with that window, but the ideal thing would be to have an operable window, probably with weights or double weights. He stated that the idea about that one is to replace the bottom sash, but they don't yet have a good sense of what will happen there. Jim Estin said that one of the problems of rebuilding what is there is that there will still be the same problem with the upper rail. He said that if he can get a thermal sash that is of that size, then it would be okay to pull up by the top rail, because it would be a whole new construction. Weitzel asked what the material of the thermal sash would be. He said it would have to be either wood or clad wood. Jim Estin said that it would probably be wood and not clad wood, because it needs the ropes for the weight anyway. Weitzel said that there is a repair technique that involves not replacing the wood at all. He said that there is a two-pad process involving a chemical that consolidates the existing woodwork, and then any holes are filled with an epoxy. Weitzel said that then the original sashes would not have to be removed at all. He said that a lot of windows can be repaired at a very reasonable cost using this method. Weitzel said that then the owners might not have to remill new rails. Ann Estin showed the product that Iowa City Window and Door quoted to them. She stated that since the application was turned in, Knebel Window has quoted for them a Weathershield product that is pretty similar in that it is a sash replacement of the same sort. Ann Estin said that they are looking for permission to use that or an equivalent product. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 8 Weitzel asked if the Estins would be using the Oralast, the treated sash. Ann Estin confirmed this. Weitzel said that it is pressure treated, and the website says that it is paintable. Jim Estin asked if the Commission would prefer that the outside be wood for a sash replacement. Weitzel said that it is taken on a case-by-case basis, although the guidelines allow for metal or wood. He said the Commission foresees opportunities where clad would not blend in with the rest of the house, especially if the rest of the house is still wood, although the Commission has never denied that. Weitzel stated that if the Commission had a preference, it would probably always go for wood. Gunn said that was probably the case but said the reason the guidelines allow clad wood windows is that the profile and appearance from outside is usually the same as a wood window. He said the profile all looks the same, and if it's paintable, it practically becomes the same to the Commission. Weitzel said that sometimes the clad is not paintable. Jim Estin said it sounds like the Commission's preference would be for non-clad in this case. Carlson stated that even if it's clad, it has to be paintable. Maharry asked if the DRS had reviewed this item. Weitzel said that all of the items were reviewed but said that the applicants were not coming to the DRS meetings. Terdalkar said that each applicant came in to see him, and he told them what the DRS had indicated about their projects. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the repair and replacement of twelve of twenty-seven windows, as requested by the applicants; noting that the applicants have done their research and really tried to figure out which windows are salvageable, which should be replaced, and which did not need to be replaced; with the allowance for trim to match around window eleven and with an allowance to change the dimensions of non-historic window number twelve and to change it to a double hung window to match the existing. Ponto seconded the motion. Weitzel noted that work on window twelve is not a replacement but is an alteration of the wall; it is not a sash replacement but is a new window. Ann Estin confirmed that the request is for eleven sash replacements, one new window, and one with the trim outside. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. MOTION: Carlson moved to take up from the table consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for a project at 415 Clark Street. Ponto seconded the motion. Dipps said that the owners are opposed to a parapet wall. He said they would be willing to go to a flat roof on the new project. Terdalkar said the reason for the pitched roof was to not have such a big terrace, and the DRS thought it would be difficult to manage that big of a walkout terrace. Dipps said that the owners would like some overhangs for energy conservation. He asked if that would be acceptable. Bill Dostal said that he would not consider it essential, although he would like to have it. Gunn stated that it is hard to get enough overhang to shade the windows a lot. Dipps said he would like to have 18 inches to two feet. Maharry asked if there had to be a setback anyway, if that could work back into the setback of the addition. Dipps said he cannot do that, because he is so short on space for the bathroom right now that he has to go out to the end of the garage. Weitzel said one thing the Commission would be concerned about would be the roofline extending beyond the side of the garage. Dipps said that the existing window is tucked under the overhang and is boxed out. He asked if it would be okay to just have an overhang on the back end but not on the sides, to accommodate that boxed out window. Dipps said that it would not be seen from any angle, except if one is in the backyard. Weitzel said that from a lot of angles in the back, it would more or less fade into the profile. Dipps said they could then just keep the garage the way it is. He said they want to reuse the one window and then use double hungs for the other windows. Dipps said the remaining issue is the placement of windows. Ponto said that was acceptable to him so far. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 9 Carlson said that he was a little concerned about reusing that window that looks like nothing else on the house. Jan Dostal suggested putting panes in it. Maharry said that if the owners are willing to do that, it might be an acceptable compromise. Dipps said that they could use the painted wood, clip-in muntin bars. Weitzel said his thought regarding the big window is that the division between it was the biggest thing that struck him as showing that it is a new window. He said, however, it was a window that was added on a long time ago, so he did not care if divisions were put in. Dipps said that there was some objection to the window that is in the nook next to the closet. He said that the owners would be okay with making that a double window. Weitzel said that part of the issue was the placement in the wall. Dipps said they could put in a double window by adding another window to the right. Weitzel said that would add some balance. Dipps said that they could install a twin double hung window. Weitzel asked how far the owners would be willing to set that south on the wall. Dipps said that making it a twin would be mOving it in, and he would not want to move it in much more. Weitzel said that the plan already shows it as a double window, and the DRS thought it was perhaps too close to the wall. Gunn said he was not sure that this would look a whole lot better centered. He said that he was not sure that centered in that portion of the wall would be a whole lot better than moving it to the outside. Gunn said that if it crowds the outside, it's really tight, but if it can have about eight inches of siding, then it would not look like it is crammed to the outside and there would be some balance to it. Dipps said that it would be a four-foot tall window that would be 2 % feet off the floor. Carlson asked if the windows would be the same dimensions as the other double hung windows on the house. Dipps said that they would be almost exactly the same. He said that the windows on the south elevation of the new addition would be within an inch of being the exact same size of the casements that are there. Dipps said that on the north elevation there is a small bathroom window that he could use a double hung window for. He said they would put a window similar to that size in the closet, so there would be two of the small double hung windows in that wall. McCallum said that would then break up the wall space. Weitzel asked if the windows would be metal clad wood windows. Dipps stated that they are Andersen vinyl clad wood windows. He said they are a very high quality window. Weitzel said that the Commission disallows vinyl clad windows. Dipps said that he could look for a different window. He said, however, that most of the better windows are vinyl clad. Dipps stated that the Andersen vinyl windows are paintable, and the vinyl is a solid piece so that water cannot leak into the window. Weitzel said that the issue is not the water leaking into the metal clad but is the condensation behind it. He said that the wood has moisture in it, and the metal has a different temperature and doesn't allow the moisture to escape, and it has condensation inside. Weitzel said that vinyl does that also. Weitzel said the guidelines disallow vinyl clad windows. He said that the guidelines are based on research. Dipps said that he could use aluminum clad windows but added that he would get information to the Commission to show that the vinyl clad windows are paintable. He said that the vinyl on the clad windows is not like vinyl siding. Gunn said that the Commission is always willing to consider new products and review product information. Dipps asked what the difference is in the regulations for a historic district versus a conservation district. Weitzel said that one difference is how they come into being, although they are essentially regulated the same way. Gunn said that there is a little more flexibility in a conservation district. Weitzel said, however, that there is not flexibility for the principle structures. He said the flexibility affects non-historic buildings, not in materials for contributing structures. Weitzel said that contributing structures in both types of districts are treated the same way. Maharry asked what type of siding would be used for the addition. Dipps said that it would be the same as is there now, wood siding. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 10 Gunn asked if there would be cornerboards on the addition. He asked if there was an outside corner on the original house. Jan Dostal said that there was not on the back. Dipps said that the addition would have cornerboards, and there would also be a wider piece between where the original house was and where the addition would be. Gunn said that he thought that less than a twelve-inch overhang would not look that drastically different on the house. He said that the casement window just needs enough overhang to protect it from water. Carlson asked if the eaves of the addition would project out beyond the plane of the garage wall. Dipps said he did not think that they would; he said the garage is like the house in that respect. Weitzel said that the garage has an overhang that appears to be modest but sufficient. Carlson asked if there would be a cornerboard to mark the division between the garage and the addition. Dipps confirmed this and said there would also be one on the south elevation. Carlson asked about the overhang on the west elevation. Dipps said that it would end up being the same overhang over the boxed out window as what is on the rest of the house. He said that the overhang won't be seen; it will only be an overhang that sticks out over the boxed window, and it will actually be the same overhang as on the rest of the house. Regarding the reuse of the four-paneled window, Carlson said it is the sort of thing that, if it were proposed as a new window, probably would not be allowed. Weitzel said the applicants cited the cost of that window replacement and the fact that it is not at the end of its useful life as reasons for the window's reuse. Ponto pointed out that it was added as part of an addition anyway and would continue to be used in an addition. Gunn said the Commission is trying to make the new addition sympathetic to the house, not to the 1960 addition. Carlson said that the casement window is dramatically different from the rest of the house. He said that the reuse of the window is the one part of the application that he is not comfortable with after the agreed-to changes. McCallum said that he would support the property owners on the reuse of the casement window in the addition. Gunn suggested that putting in mullions would make the window look almost like the design proposal. Carlson said that mullions would result in very small panes compared to anything else, smaller even than the bathroom casement on the second story. Gunn said it would also look more like one might have seen in a sun porch. Carlson said that he does not object to the use of casements per se, because they could have been on an addition like this, but the dimensions of these windows are narrower than anything one would see on the original structure. He did not know how the divided lights would look. Terdalkar pointed out that the Commission would currently be approving five different sizes and proportions as proposed now. Maharry suggested that the divided lights would be an appropriate compromise. Gunn asked if the window would be trimmed to match the rest of the windows. He said that the casement units could be trimmed with the same 3.5-inch trim. Dipps said that he could do that. Gunn said that part of the reason casement windows look funny is that they don't have any trim around them. Weitzel said that he thought that trim would help a lot. Ponto said that he would be okay with such a compromise. Regarding the window, Carlson said that in principle he would be willing to accept the simulated divided lights, in the spirit of using an existing, working window. Regarding the window cladding, Gunn said that Andersen is saying that it is not made of rigid vinyl so that is it paintable. Dipps said that the white can be painted any color. Gunn said he believed that Andersen made a painted metal clad window. Dipps stated that he would have the Andersen representative contact Terdalkar to get information to the Commission. The consensus of the Commission was to'require muntins, horizontal bars, and mullions, vertical bars, in the four-paneled windows. Jan Dostal said there would probably need to be five horizontal bars across one vertical bar. Carlson asked what the existing foundation is made of. Dipps said that it is cement block. Terdalkar said that the cement block is on the addition, but the original house has brick. Bill Dostal said that all of the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 11 foundation is cement block except the garage, which was built on a slab. Terdalkar said it might be that the face of the foundation is brick. Bill Dostal confirmed that the front steps are brick. Bill Dostal stated that the basement is cinder block. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 415 Clark Street using the submitted floor plan, with the following changes: the overhang on the addition to match the existing garage and house everywhere except the beside the casement window on the west side, a flat roof, a paired double hung window on the west side of the northwest corner with ten-inch minimum siding exposure between the cornerboard and the window trimboard, the addition of a window to the closet on the ground floor, double hung windows for all new windows, the existing casement window to be reused should be trimmed to match the rest of the house with mullions and muntins added to simulate the upper story casement window, and with the foundation to match that of the original house. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:lpcd/minuteslHPCI2005/O8-25-O5. (toc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 1/8 1/13 2/10 2/15 3/10 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/2 6/9 6/30 7/14 8/15 8/25 M. Brennan 3/29/08 .................... X X X X X X O O/E X X R. Carlson 3/29/07 ........ X X X X X X O/E X X O X X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X O O X X O O O O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E M. Gunn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X X X X X X .................... X X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X X X X O X X X X X X X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 O/E X X O O O/E O O O O O X X O O J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X X ........................................ J. Weissmiiler 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E X X X O/E X O/E T. Weitzel 3/29/08 O/E O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES APPROVED 4b~~3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HAP, VAT HALL SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Justin Pardekooper, Jan Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Chris Ackerson, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Bestor, John Cordell, Maria Duarte, Kurt Dyer, Mike Lange, Shelley McCafferty, Owner of 1022 E. College Street, Roger Shultz, Rose Shultz, Jenni Thielen CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 520 Clark Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Clark Street Conservation District. He said the application is for an addition to the back of the house that would be over the existing addition, measuring approximately 24 feet by 18 feet. Terdalkar said that one of the issues to be addressed includes the size and proportion of the new addition in relation to the house. He said that the guidelines specify certain criteria, which are mentioned in the staff report. Roger Shultz said that the preferred way to add on to a colonial is to place the addition to the side or to the rear. He said that the addition involves the rear of his property, to increase the size of the upstairs. Roger Shultz said that the addition would take advantage of the east and south sides to enjoy natural light and enjoy visual access to the oversized rear yard. He said that he does not propose to expand any of the footprint of the existing house, which would keep the emphasis on the main house and simplify construction above an already-made addition. Roger Shultz said that the gabled roof would be perpendicular to the existing gabled roof. He said an eleven-inch extension would be given to the east side to match the existing house. Roger Shultz said that plans show that the roof is actually twelve inches higher than the original roof. He said this was done to maintain the pitch very close to the original roof pitch but still allow an eight-foot ceiling line in the addition. Roger Shultz said he plans to add French doom in the back, a protective railing, and a sunburst window similar to a fan lamp that would be found in a colonial house. He said this would be recessed into the addition by six feet. Roger Shultz said that he would also like to place windows as close as he can to match the existing windows in the house. Roger Shultz said that on the south side, he is looking for a proud vertical stance that is typical of earlier colonials. He stated that adding windows that are as'close as he can find to the original home will contribute natural light. Enloe said the owner wants to have an eight-foot ceiling height next to the walls inside the addition. He asked the owner what he has on the front part of the house on the same floor. Lange said that there are approximately five-foot knee walls. He said the owners want to avoid that. Weitzel said that the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) had concerns about the roof ridge that would be taller than the original building, the fact that the fenestration would not match the original building, and the loss of original windows that are somewhat unique on this house. He said the DRS noted that the roof rising above the original height is not in keeping with Standards Nine and Ten of the Secretary of the Interior, which state that the addition should remain subordinate to the original house. Weitzel said that the Commission's Guideline 5.1 recommends that a design professional be consulted to harmonize the structure with the original house. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 2 McCallum asked if the roofline was being lifted in order to maintain an eight-foot ceiling height. Lange confirmed this. Ponto said that to still have enough slope on the roof, it would end up being that tall. McCallum asked if this were being done to match the roof angle of the original house, and Lange confirmed this. McCallum asked if there would be any other way to do this. Lange said that the pitch of the roof could be reduced, but it would then not match the pitch of the existing house, which the owners thought would look better. Terdalkar noted that the proposed pitch does not reflect the pitch of the original house. Gunn said that the pitch would be slightly less. Lange said that if he went with the extra pitch of the existing house, it would be that much higher. He said that the rise would be about 12 inches higher than the original. Lange said that typically that would be framed in a triangle in the front that would be proportional to that. Lange said that he could modify the truss design to bring it either to meet or slightly below. Maharry asked where the chimney fits in. Roger Shultz said that the peak comes just to the right of the chimney. Weitzel said that a 7 % foot ceiling is required by code. Lange said it would have a cathedral ceiling effect so that the sidewalls would be eight. McCallum said that if it is then only 7 % feet on the sides then that would probably be functional. Gunn said that he put a one and one-half story addition on the back of his house and had the same problem with the sidewall. He said that he went up to a full eight feet, and his addition was higher by probably 18 inches. Gunn said that he just pulled the angle back so that it was not visible from the street. He said it was the exact same issue, but he pulled the wall back at an angle so that the peak is back behind the line of sight from the street. Gunn asked if there is anything on the north side. Lange said there is one back window on the north side. Roger Shultz said that there are two existing windows that are spaced, and then there would be one more window to the left of the last existing window. He said that farther over there is a closet where they originally put a window but later took it out, although he would have no objection to putting it back. Gunn asked about the current addition. Roger Shultz said that it was added on in 1978. He said that the wall is flush, and the siding runs all the way across. Gunn asked if there are cornerboards on the house. Roger Shultz said that the house has aluminum siding, and there are cornerboards on every corner. Gunn asked about the siding for the proposed addition. Roger Shultz said that he would use hardi-plank and would paint it as close as he could in color. Lange said that if there is an objection to continuing the aluminum on it, he would probably use the hardi- plank on the prior addition as well as the new one so that it would be consistent. Gunn suggested using a full vertical cornerboard, even though the plane doesn't change. He said the huge north face that is all flat could at least be broken up with a vertical rail. Regarding the windows, Lange said he tried to mimic the windows of the addition versus those of the existing house. Roger Shultz said that on the east side, they matched up the window sizes. He said that there are a number of different-sized windows on the house. He said there tend to be more panes on the bottom sash than on the top sash. McCallum said that the trim around the windows on the original house is not really wide. Maharry said that is a good question, whether the second floor should look like the original house when the first floor doesn't whatsoever. McCallum said he agrees with Lange's assertion that what is on the addition should be consistent with what is on the current addition, because it might draw less attention to itself that way. Weitzel said the guidelines are written to recommend that the windows match the historic windows, not the addition windows, with respect to type, proportion, trim, and appearance. Enloe agreed that the guidelines are clear on that point. Weitzel said the language doesn't mandate that the windows match but does recommend it. Gunn said if it were a new addition from the ground up, it would be an easier issue. He said that narrower windows on top of wider windows would look a little odd. Weitzel said that the DRS also looked at the placement of the windows. Maharry said that there is already currently asymmetry on the first floor, as there are two on the south side and one on the north side. Gunn said that on the south elevation, the triple wide windows look out of scale even for the addition below. He suggested that three pairs of windows instead of two triple windows would get a lot closer to the scale, Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 3 size and look of the windows of the historic house. Gunn said it would give almost as much light. Roger Shultz said that they would be willing to consider using two or three pairs of windows there. Weitzel said the DRS also had comments regarding the custom window over the door in the back. He stated that one suggestion was a half moon fan light. Roger Shultz said that there are also semi-circles on the side of the house that are vents. Gunn stated that the sharp corners don't really fit. Roger Shultz said that they could change that to more of a fan shape. Lange said that the window is actually set in six feet so that the window would not be the focus of the appearance. He said that there would be six feet of wall, plus a gabled ceiling, and then the window. Weitzel said one would have to be directly due east of the house to see the window. Carlson asked if a wide recess in the middle of an end gable would be an appropriate historical feature. Roger Shultz said that it is a very typical way to modify a colonial to have the opening centered like that on the second floor. Weitzel said that there are actually little balconettes built in the 20s and 30s, but he thought that generally they used a flush wall. Carlson said he had not done any research on it, but that was also his impression. Rose Shultz said they thought it would be a nice break and would be a nice focal point. Carlson said the fact that the eave of the addition would be significantly higher than the eave of the rest of the house seems problematic. Weitzel said Terdalkar had pointed out that it should match. Roger Shultz said there is not an eave problem on the north side, but the eaves would be slightly different on the south side. Weitzel said that bringing the eaves down does bring a certain set of problems, and the best way that DRS could think of to fix that would be to put on an historic large gable on each side. He said there would then be a triangular roof with projecting large shed gables that could run the whole' length of the addition and even run into the house roof. Enloe said that Weitzel's proposal seems like a fairly extreme solution to have the roof go to a higher point from starting at a much lower point. Weitzel said that the angle of the roof is determined by the base. He said that to go all the way to the ridge point is pure geometry; there is not much else one can do. Enloe said it seems more extreme than the existing 'plans. Weitzel said the real roof is really still the shed dormers. He said a gambrel would be another option, but that would add an entirely different stylistic element to the house. Lange said that structurally there may be some problem with the roof load not going over the outside wall. Weitzel said that the side beams would have to be beefed up to carry the load. Lange said that running 20 feet with the TGIs as it is would be quite a lot and would not be very practical. Weitzel agreed that it would be a lot of wood. Weitzel said that the guidelines basically ignore the first addition. Roger Shultz said that in the end, he wants people to look at it and have it look like one house. Weitzel said that the Commission would want it to blend in harmoniously but not want it to look like it was built with the house. Enloe said he is less distressed by the idea of the flat fa(;ade of the original, even though it does not have triangular gables. Regarding the inset, Carlson said there are balconettes that simply would be flush or perhaps slightly recessed. Terdalkar said that a balconette would be similar to what the Commission approved on some non-historic houses, projecting about 18 inches out from the wall. Enloe said that the projection is not the question; the question is the six-foot inset toward the interior of the house. Terdalkar said that balconettes are generally not inset; the door opens right on the plane of the house. McCallum said that the design infill guidelines generally suggest this type of pattern to get balconies recessed versus projecting outward. Lange said that the owners' original thinking was that where it is somewhat of a walkout plus the original addition plus the addition is potentially a flat surface without doing something to break up the back side. Maharry encouraged the Commission to look at whether the proposal is going to be an improvement over what is there now and if it will in general look better than what is currently there. He said that it probably does improve the appearance. Maharry said even though it is a large addition, it moves more toward what the Commission would want than what is currently there. Carlson said he disagreed. He said that what is there now is unobtrusive compared to the proposed plan. He said that he thought it would be overpowering, and not in a particularly historic way. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 4 Gunn said that the detailing maximizes the size of the recess. He said that if it were trimmed more narrowly and with a curve, it could be much more discrete and in a style that is more appropriate to the house. Gunn said that some curves and narrow boards would minimize the size. Weitzel suggested having an arch there instead of the angular peak. Lange said he did not think that would be an issue. Weitzel said that a window and top to match would soften the facade. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal for an addition at 520 Clark Street with the following changes: 1) the front of the second story roof addition shall be cut back so that the ridge is not visible from the street, 2) the south elevation on the upper story shall be changed to have two pairs of windows with reasonable spacing in between, 3) the details of the balcony opening shall be changed to minimize the size, with an arch at the top that will be more appropriate to the style of the original house, and 4) a vertical seam shall be installed at the original east corner of the north elevation to visually separate the addition from the original house and a vertical inside corner installed on the south side of the addition as well. Brennan seconded the motion. McCallum said he thought this would be a nice compromise. Carlson stated that even with the minor changes, this will be an overpowering addition and not particularly sympathetic to the original house, so he would vote against the motion. Weitzel said he had some problems with this but thought that the Commission was probably doing the best it could do with this. Gunn said that he would vote in favor of the certificate. He stated that this is a large addition, but the Commission also ran into problems with trying to control the size of the additions. Gunn said that when the guidelines were written, the Commission tried very hard to incorporate language to control the square footage and the scale of the additions, but the legal staff would not allow it. He said that the guidelines only control the appearance from the street and the size of the fa(;ade, because the legal staff said that the square footage cannot be controlled as long as the project meets the Building Code requirements. Weitzel said that he believed the National Trust due process pamphlet would side in favor of the local jurisdiction over the Secretary of the Interior for something of that sort, where it is such a strong codified difference from the Secretary of the Interior Standards and is locally prevalent. Maharry called the question. McCallum seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 6-2, with Carlson and Enloe votin.q no. 1022 East Colle.qe Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a key, contributing structure in the East College Historic District. He said that the proposal is to replace the roof on an addition on the back of the house. He said that in the process, the roof pitch will be changed to attain practicality regarding drainage issues. Owner said that the flat section of roof over an addition is buckling in the center. She stated that water is pooling and damaging the clapboards on the original historic section of the house, and there is leaking into the house. She said that she is proposing to pitch it a little bit to allow for proper drainage into the gutter so that the water is not pooling or running back against the wall of the main part of the house. Owner said that because of the overhang of the other part of the addition, it won't be a high pitch, because the roof can only go up about six inches or so anyway toward the back of that. Gunn asked if it would get as high as the eave of the original. Owner said it won't touch that; it would stay beneath the existing addition roof. Weitzel said that the DRS had no problem with this, especially in light of the roof problems. He said the DRS recommends a durable, Iow pitch type of material for the roof, such as EPDM. Weitzel also suggested putting an ice barrier up behind the first two clapboards as a flashing. He said that metal flashing was acceptable. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of a roof and change of pitch at 1022 East College Street. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 5 1027 East College Street. Terdalkar said that this is a non-contributing structure in the East College Historic District. He stated that the application is for the addition of a porch on the front; the size would be approximately 25 feet by 10 feet and that the applicant has agreed to provide revised drawings of the porch with balustrade design. Thielen, the owner of the house, said she planned to build the deck first and then later build the roof to the porch. She said that the foundation needs some repair for the winter, so she would like to get started on that now. Thielen provided an elevation of what the porch would look like. She said that it would have a hip roof with a gable right over the entrance. Weitzel told Thielen said that she would also have to have a handrail on the stairs. Weitzel said that if there are four treads or more, a handrail is required by the Building Code. Terdalkar said that it depends on the height of the deck and number of risers required for the stairs. He said that if four or more risers are required for the stairs, a railing will be required. Thielen said that she didn't have a problem with having a handrail. Weitzel said the first choice would be a simple, black pipe tell. He said it is the simplest and easiest thing to do and has the least conflicting style with the house. Weitzel said the other choice would probably be a wooden balustrade type railing. Thielen said she thought she would prefer that to match the railing [on the porch]. Weitzel said that if the railing matched the drawing, that would be fine. He added that he thought the Commission would suggest a simpler newel post for the base than the large newels posts at the top, but she could probably go ahead and match one of those too. Thielen asked if the newel posts at the deck height were okay. Enloe said they were actually pretty massive. Gunn asked what type of house this is. Weitzel said it is probably an Italianate in the far back but has had some additions. He said that the front wing is an addition. Weitzel said he thought it was probably a Queen Anne and had a wraparound porch at some point. Weitzel asked Thielen if she had scaled back from the plan to have the porch go all the way around. Thielen said that she still plans to extend the porch back to the side door, and the roof would go all the way around to that. Weitzel said that one concern is the short columns, and for the pediment above the doorway, those usually have columns supporting it, because it is a classic revival. He said there is almost always a pediment with two columns beneath. Thielen said she thought that the front elevation needed the pediment. Gunn asked what the dimensions are there. Thielen said that it is 21 feet across to the edge of the house, and the extension to the side door is four and one-half feet. Gunn said that if the column were moved over to have symmetry with the door, then the span shouldn't be too long to get out to the corner. Weitzel showed a drawing with a wider pediment supported by the columns. Gunn said the idea is to center the pediment and the columns in line with the door to make it symmetrical about the front door. Enloe agreed that the pediment should be symmetrical over the door. Thielen said she had the one in the center because the Building Department was looking for a footing there. Gunn said the footing could be under the column, with the column moved over. Weitzel agreed that it could be moved a little bit toward the door. Maharry suggested that the Commission approve the concept and leave the design details to Terdalkar and the Chair for final approval. Weitzel said that because this house is non-contributing, it can have square spindles. Carlson said that the columns look a little wide for both Italianate and Queen Anne, which would have had narrower posts. Enloe suggested eight inches or smaller. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a front porch at 1027 East College Street with the conditions that the posts be placed at the ends of the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 6 pediment centered about the door; with smaller posts for the handrail and railings for the stairs, if necessary; with lattice or simple vertical bars for skirting; and with final drawings to be approved by the Commission or staff and the Chair. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 228 South Summit Street #A2. Terdalkar stated that this is a key-contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said that the project involves the replacement of two double hung windows with casement windows for the purpose of having egress windows. Terdalkar said that this alteration would be at the back of the building. Cordell, the owner, said he intends to replace two double hung windows with casement windows for egress. McCafferty, the consultant, said that there are currently no egress windows in the apartment. Weitzel said that the DRS felt that the window replacement made sense, according to the guidelines. McCafferty said that there are other casement windows in the first floor of the building. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows ~t 228 South Summit Street #A2. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 328 South Governor Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District. He said that the application is for the replacement of six inoperable windows in the attic with double hung windows of a slightly larger size. Weitzel said that the DRS noted that the replacement would impact several probably original Queen Anne/Edwardian type windows in this house that are central panels fixed in lead with other small squares around the panel. Dyer said there really needs to be some ventilation up in the attic where living space would be added. He said that on the back he wants to put a dormer and egress window, but that would be the only ventilation. Weitzel said that vinyl or vinyl clad wood windows may be used for replacement of basement windows for conservation districts for historic, non-contributing, but there are no upper-story window allowances. McCallum suggested that skylights would give flexibility and some functionality and would save the original windows. He pointed out that they could be used in the rear elevations. Weitzel said that he would rather see skylights here than the removal of the windows. He said there are some skylights that are pretty flat that have a low profile. Gunn said that would also give a lot of light. Weitzel said the skylights could go on the proposed addition on the back. Ponto said that everyone on the Commission would like to save the windows. Dyer said he thought that two skylights would be acceptable. He said that the dormer is only about three feet wide. Terdalkar suggested one each on the south and north end one on the east roof surface of the house. Dyer agreed that would work and added that they would not then be seen from the street. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to allow two openable, flat skylights for ventilation, one each on the north and south ends of the eastern roof at 328 South Governor Street. McCallum seconded the motion. Weitzel said the Commission would recommend metal skylights because this is a roof component. Carlson asked if the gable was approved as part of this application. Weitzel said it was a separate application subject to final plan approval by the Chair and staff. Terdalkar said the certificate for the dormer was approved subject to the final plan being approved by the Commission or the staff. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. The consensus of the Commission was to review the proposal for the gable. Weitzel read from the memo, "in staff's view, the dormer as proposed would be very large and would not fit in the roofline or mass of the structure. This will effectively add another gable end to the roof changing the roofline significantly. The guidelines allow new dormers that are designed '...such that the face of the dormer is primarily composed of window area.'" Weitzel said that the DRS thought that the size of the plan indicated a gable addition, not a dormer addition. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 7 Terdalkar showed what the Commission originally reviewed and asked if the Commission would approve of the final drawing, the revised proposal. Dyer said that the revised proposal is not much bigger than four feet long and eight feet wide as shown in the original. He said that it is hard to draw it on a computer to go with an eight/twelve. Weitzel asked for the final dimensions for the dormer to be approved. Dyer said that it would be about eight feet high, eight feet from south to north, and would sit on a soldier wall and come out three feet from the roof at the top of it. Carlson said that it looks much bigger than what was approved on June 30th, although it might be just in the way it is drawn. Dyer said that it is only out about three feet. He said that that length of the ridge is only about three feet. Enloe said the Commission still needs design drawings that show the real dimensions. Enloe said that Terdalkar's rendition is more acceptable than the applicant's proposal. Weitzel said that Terdalkar made the drawing because there was no plan. Dyer said it sits on the soldier wall and goes straight up and then comes out three feet. Weitzel said the original plan said four feet long and asked if that was from extending on the ridge four feet and now it would just be three feet. Dyer responded that it would be three to four feet. Terdalkar said his drawing was done to interpret the applicant's drawing and try to find out how to put up a window of egress height. McCallum asked Dyer if Terdalkar's interpretation of what the Commission approved is acceptable to him. Dyer said he is only talking about three to four feet to get level going out. Enloe referred to the soldier wall. Dyer said that the dormer should be standing on that. Enloe said that it is then much more accurate in the second drawing that the Commission has, which appears to make it a lot larger gable than the other rendition, if it comes all the way out to that wall. Dyer said that it is a real little dormer. He said the problem is that the addition goes inside, and then there is a wall there. Dyer said it is hard to visualize, although he knew that Enloe was saying that it has to come way out to hit it. Enloe said the distance from the peak of the current gable to the soldier wall is greater than three or four feet. Dyer said he did not believe so. Weitzel said it would have to be about five feet from the gable top to this point. He said the drawing shows the roof as beginning at a point behind that gable, so that is five feet plus, not three or four feet. Weitzel said the Commission needs a final plan with dimensions. Dyer said that there is a ten-inch overhang too, and the wall is back inside there. Dyer said the Commission wanted the pitch to be at an eight/twelve, so it has to be that big. Weitzel said the preference was for the roofline to match the existing house. McCallum asked if the reason for this was to get height for a staircase. Dyer confirmed this. McCallum said then that a big dormer is not really needed, and Dyer confirmed this. Weitzel suggested trying a different kind of dormer to give room over the staircase, perhaps an octagonal dormer. Gunn said that if the Commission knew where the headroom is needed and had dimensions, that would help. He said that this doesn't sound undoable, but the revised drawing seems much bigger than it needs to be, and the other drawing is much less precise than the Commission needs to approve it. Gunn said the Commission needs measurements, including how far in from the gable end is needed for clearance. He said he was sure the applicant didn't need a dormer that is higher than the existing gable. Gunn said it would be below that and would be in a ways, but the Commission can't approve what it is uncertain about. Dyer said that eight/twelve is the existing pitch. Weitzel said that a shed dormer might work, depending on how it was designed and how it looked. Dyer said he thought that what is really needed is a wall on one end as indicated by Terdalkar. Gunn said that would certainly 'minimize the size. He said that if the wall can be positioned based on where the headroom is needed, then everything else should fall into place. Maharry said the motion passed by the Commission at the other meeting said that the Commission or staff could review the final drawing. He said then, that at any point when the drawings come in, the plans Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 8 can go to staff for final approval. Ponto said that the Commission has already agreed in principle, and the details just need to be worked out. 517 Grant Street. Weitzel recused himself as Chair and from consideration of this item. Carlson led the meeting at this point as Vice Chair. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said that the application is to cover the built-in gutters on the existing house. Terdalkar said that the proposal is to do it in such a way that the roof slope at the end of the gutters will be changed. Duarte, the owner of the house, said that the main problem is on the south side of the house, where she has been fighting leaks for years. She said that the built-in gutters are very attractive. Duarte said she has tried different ways of fixing the gutters. Duarte said that the awning is the bump out in the dining room, which is the problem area, because there is also a dormer right above that. Duarte said that from the information she has been able to gather, putting some kind of membrane lining there would work for perhaps five years. She said she did not think she should constantly have to worry about whether or not she would have a leaky ceiling because she lives in a historic district. Duarte said that all of the roofing contractors she has spoken with have recommended this as the most practical and secure way to take care of these problems. Duarte said that she would like to also do the north side, for symmetry with the south side. Duarte said she has driven around the neighborhood and does realize that some things were grandfathered in. She said it does seem, however, that this is indeed the preferred method. Duarte said that what she proposes may be against her original structure of the house but is certainly consistent with the historical way of solving a problem. She said that while these gutters may aesthetically be very pleasing, she thinks that functionally it is a design flaw. Duarte said she hopes that common sense overrules strict adherence to a historical artifact. She said that neither Grant Street nor much of the Longfellow District has anything architecturally that is really all that wonderful. Duarte said she would like to have her house not leak and would like to be able to do it in the simplest way. Duarte said that this change is small and is pervasive in the neighborhood. McCallum asked if there would be an endcap, and Duarte confirmed this. Carlson said that the DRS discussed this project, and, unfortunately, it seems very cut and dried. He said that under disallowed, the guidelines include "altering the roof slope near the gutter when covering historic built-in gutters." He stated that the Commission actually does not have any leeway to allow this. Carlson said the question for the Commission is what other alternatives it can come up with. Duarte said that if the Commission will not consider any kind of exception, then basically what is there is the flat solution. Weitzel said that on the north side of his house, he put in a membrane roof and an ice barrier product sufficiently far up the slope so that there will not be snow or ice damage back up there underneath the shingles on the roof, where he suspected the problem was. He said that before he bought the house, there was a slope put on the south side where snow collects. Weitzel said that snow sits there for three or four days and then all comes off at once. He said that on the north side, where he installed the membrane and ice guard over five years ago, he has never had a leak. Duarte said that her house has the original gutters. She said she also has an avalanche of snow coming off on the south side but does not have one on the north side. Duarte said she was disappointed that the Commission would not make an exception for this. She said she feels her only choice is to enclose them with a flat solution, although she was not convinced that this is not going to continue to create some problems in the long run. Duarte asked, if she were inclined to go ahead with her project, what the consequences would be of her being in violation. Brennan said that technically each day that this is in non-compliance would be a separate violation, theoretically, although he did not know if it ever went that far. McCallum said that if the change were voted down, this could be appealed to the City Council. Weitzel said it could be overturned only if the decision were arbitrary or capricious, and this is clearly in the guidelines. Enloe agreed that the guidelines are very clear on this point. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 9 Duarte said she finds maintaining the gutters that she currently has to be unacceptable and sees this proposal as her best option. She said she should be able to know what the penalty is for continuing with the project. Terdalkar said that the City would impose any penalty, and the Building Department would decide if there would be a penalty. He said he believed that it would be double the price of the building permit, which would depend on the construction estimates. Duarte asked if the fine would be imposed per day. Brennan suggested that Duarte call the Building Department and/or the Legal Department to get information about the fine. Enloe suggested that Duarte consider looking at alternatives. He said that there may be higher technology solutions to the problems that she is currently experiencing. Enloe said there are more options, and the options of flat solutions may be greater than Duarte is currently aware of. He said they might not be so onerous to install and they may be quite effective, so that it would be worth exploring with roofing contractors. Gunn said that his porches have internal gutters and they're fine. He said that the internal gutters have sometimes been covered with a very Iow pitch, essentially flat, and then the external gutter is applied. Gunn said it is not a full internal gutter, but it does retain the roof lines, and there is a gutter applied on the outside. Duarte said that she is certainly willing to consider the idea of a flat cover if it will keep her house dry. She asked if the Commission would approve some kind of flat cover. McCallum said that would not change the appearance of the house. Maharry said that if the appearance is not changed, there is no material effect. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 517 Grant Street, as proposed. Enloe seconded the motion. Enloe stated that it is clear to him that the guidelines forbid this. McCallum said that he did not feel that it was that big of a modification and said he would support it. Brennan said he did see anything wrong with the proposal. He said, however, that the guidelines are clear on this subject, and the City Council adopted them, so he had no option other than to vote against this. Enloe called the question. Maharry seconded. The motion failed on a vote of 1-6, with McCallum votin.q in favor. Carlson relinquished chairmanship of the meeting back to Weitzel. 415 Clark Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the College Street Conservation District. He said that the Commission had recently previously approved an addition proposed for this property, with certain conditions. However the applicants have a new proposal and he added that the proposal is, in general, consistent with the guidelines. McCafferty said that the addition has been revised will be detached from the garage to get rid of the roof issue. She said that the eaves may have to be a little deeper than what is on the house in order to get appropriate ventilation but will still generally look similar to the house. McCafferty said the two double hung windows on the south elevation are much wider than the applicants wanted on that side. McCafferty said that there is actually an existing window on the dining room side right in front of the garage. She said the owners would like to have windows of that dimension, but because this will be used for sleeping, it would not meet egress to do a double hung window of that width. McCafferty said the applicants therefore request to install windows of that same dimension as the one in the dining room, but they would have to be casement windows to meet egress. McCafferty said that because of the [revised] roofline, the owners likely won't have to take out the second story dormer window. She said she would ask the Commission to approve an alternative to allow the shortening of the window minimally probably about four inches, if necessary, to accommodate the pitch of the roof on the addition. McCafferty said she would have to change the roof and thought she could get the window in just below, but she wanted that option if things turned out differently during construction. She said that the roof on the existing addition then can get to three/twelve and still get in just below that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 10 window, but she said that it might have to be bumped up. McCafferty said that it would be a minor adjustment. McCallum said that this proposal is very nice compared to any of the ideas previously considered. He said that he would support this as proposed. Weitzel said that the DRS felt that changing the window would be regrettable but that it would be better than losing the whole window. Carlson asked about the south elevation window changes. McCafferty referred to the drawing and said that the windows would be the same size as on the dining room on the north elevation but said they would have to be casement windows for egress. Weitzel asked why the vent on the new addition is shown off-center. McCafferty replied that it would be aligned with the ridge of the primary roof. Weitzel said that otherwise the whole project is balanced and proportioned well. Carlson asked if there would be a panel above the existing four-pane window on the west elevation. McCafferty said that it would be an arch-head window. She said the truss is such that there would be a tray in the ceiling, and then the arched head would actually extend up into that tray. McCafferty said that this would extend beyond the garage a little bit on the north side. She said the primary reason for that is to get the addition aligned with the new window with the arched head so that there is some symmetry inside. Maharry asked if the owners would still like to keep the original four- paneled windows and would be putting in the muntin bars. McCafferty confirmed this. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 415 Clark Street, as proposed, with the option of raising the upper window up to four inches, if necessary to accommodate the roofline. Enloe seconded the motion. Gunn asked if the guidelines would allow casement windows here. Weitzel replied that casement windows are allowed where appropriate to the style of house. He said that there are several sun porches and a prairie craftsman style house on Grant Street with casements built into the house from the original construction. Carlson said that a house of this period could have had casement windows, and also, they are not all over the addition but are just on this one fa(~ade. Ponto said he is more open to using casement windows, because they are to be used for egress. Weitzel read from the guidelines that casement windows are disallowed when they were not original to the building, consistent with the architectural style, or required for egress" and said that all three of the exceptions to disallowing casement windows are met here. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 801 Bowery Street. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Governor Lucas Street Conservation District. He said that the applicant has revised the application to have fewer steps, but the landing will still be required. Terdalkar said that from the application, it looks like this will be over 30 inches to the deck, and if that is the case, a guardrail will be required. He said the application proposes to use pipe rail for the handrails on the stairs with two or four wood newel posts. Weitzel said that the DRS felt that the pipe rail between two newel posts was very unusual and recommended using a compliant piece of wood instead. -I'erdalkar said that the baluster being used for the stairs handrail would not be required, so the owner can just use four newel posts and a handrail. He said that as long as they are above 30 inches for the deck, a guardrail would be required, and it should probably be something simple. Weitzel noted that skirting may also be required. Terdalkar said that from prior discussions with the owner, he felt that the owner was opposed to the idea of being required to install the handrails and guardrails. Weitzel said that the Legal Apartment has indicated that if the Commission has the applicant's approval, it can modify fairly freely, but if the applicant is not willing to modify his design, the Commission has to vote down the application and cite the reasons per Code, guidelines, or standards, for doing so. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 11 MOTION: Ponto moved to' approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 801 Bowery Street. McCallum seconded the motion. Maharry said that the Commission has never approved anything that is not consistent with the historic preservation guidelines, such as this combination pipe and wood. Carlson said that the kind of wood to be used for the project has not been presented in the application. Weitzel said that this is therefore an incomplete application. The motion failed on a vote of 0-8. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the design proposed by Terdalkar for the application at 801 Bowery Street, as an alternative to what was submitted by the applicant. McCallum seconded the motion. Maharry asked if skirting would be required here. Terdalkar said that the Building Code requires skirting below a certain height. Maharry said that it turns into a little porch here, and there is skirting on all other porches. Carlson said the guidelines say that consistent materials meeting the guidelines should be used for both the handrails and the guardrails. Regarding the skirting, Ponto stated that the guidelines refer to vertical or lattice. Weitzel said this is clearly a Queen Anne house. Weitzel said he would be happy if the skirting matches the guidelines. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Gunn moved to strike the words "may be" from the proposed drawing; to require the material to be consistent with the guidelines, especially regarding paintability and disallowing untreated, painted wood; and to require the skirting to be consistent with the style. McCallum seconded the amendment. The amended motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 1143 Maple Street. Weitzel said that this is a non-historic house. He stated that the owner wants to change out the basement windows with sliding windows. Weitzel said that there is already a wide variety of windows on this house, and the DRS recommends approval. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows at 1143 Maple Street, as proposed. Maharry seconded the motion. Carlson said the DRS did not oppose the slider windows because this is a non-historic building, and the windows are at least consistent with the style. He said that the windows will also be below grade and not particularly visible anyway. Weitzel said that slider windows are allowed on non-historic properties in conservation districts. He said that the disallowed subsection states "Installing modern types of windows including sliding, awning, casement and bay windows, when they were not original to the building, consistent with the architectural style, or required for egress." Weitzel said that if any of those apply, then the sliders can be allowed, and he believed that they are consistent with the style of this building. Weitzel said he thought that the slider windows would be acceptable because this is a non-historic house, and there are two or three kinds of windows on there right now. He stated that this is the kind of house that the sliding or awning windows were built for. Weitzel said he did not think they would change the appearance that much, because the windows to be replaced are two-paneled windows, and the sliders will have a similar appearance. He said that the house already has awnings upstairs, a casement window upstairs, and a big picture window upstairs. Gunn said that he was okay with this. Carlson said that it meets all the exceptions for non-historic properties in Section 3.3 of the Guidelines. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 12 MINUTES: MOTION: Enloe moved to defer consideration of the August 15, 2005 and August 25, 2005 minutes to the Commission's next meeting. McCallum seconded the motion. Terdalkar noted that the tape recorder did not work for the August 15th meeting, and Commission members should consider the parenthetical expressions to see if they can fill in the blanks. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Weitzel said that Commission members should refer their comments regarding the RFP to Terdalkar. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcd/minutes/H PC/2OO5/hpcO9-O8-OS.doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 1/8 1/13 2/10 2/15 3/10 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/2 6/9 6/30 7/14 8/15 8/25 9/8 M. Brennan 3/29/08 .................... X X X X X X O O/E X X X R. Carlson 3/29/07 ........ X X X X X X O/U X X O X X X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X O O X X O O O O/U O/E O/E O/U O/U X M. Gunn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X X M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X X X X X X .................... X X X X M. mcCallum 3/29/06 X X X X X X O X X X X X X X X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 O/E X X O O O/U O O O O O X X O O O J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X X ............................................ J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/U O/E X X X O/E X O/E O/E T. Weitzel 3/29/08 O/E O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 2005 ROOM G09/8 - SENIOR CENTER Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 2:05 PM. Members Present: Jo Hensch Jay Honohan, Betty Kelly, Sarah Maiers, and Charity Rowley. Members absent: Lori Benz and Nancy Wombacher Staff Present: Michelle Buhman, Linda Kopping, Julie Seal and Susan Rogusky. Others Present: Lynn Campbell, Betty McKray and Lee McGovern Recommendations to Council: None. Approval of Minutes: Motion: To approve the minutes from the July 2005 meeting as distributed. Motion carried on a vote of a 5-0. Rowley/Kelly PUBLIC DISCUSSION None COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS Maiers volunteered to write the web article from today's meeting. Honohan volunteered to report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council. DISCUSSION OF THE RECOGNITION OF ELEANOR HUGHES The Commission will discuss this at the Strategic Goal Setting session scheduled for August 19 and 20, 2005. UPDATE ON THE AUGUST 19 AND 20 STRATEGIC PLANNING AND GOAL SETTING SESSION- Kopping The meeting will be held on August 19 and 20 as scheduled. Jim Swaim will be facilitating the event that will be held at the Iowa City Water Plant. SENIOR CENTER UPDATE- Operations- Kopping Honohan reported on the balance and recent transactions in the Senior Center Endowment and Charitable Giving accounts held at the Johnson County Community Foundation. Honohan will request that the Community Foundation provide the Commission with a quarterly report on Senior Center designated assets. Endowment I Charitable Giving Balance as of June 30, 2005 $108,130.25 I $51,863.31 Balance July 2005, before transfer $110,851.46 $51,863.31 Balance Auq. 1, 2005 $164,851.46 $26,863.31 Balance after Hughes Transfer $164,851.46 $301.086.03 FINAL Growth in the Senior Center Endowment and Charitable Giving Accounts during fiscal year 2005: Interest Grants Total Increase Account Earnings $5,130.25 $8130.25 Senior Center Endowment (5.13%) $3,000 (8.13%) Senior Center Charitable $1,863.31 $1,863.31 Giving (3.73%) (3.73%) Total interest earnings for both accounts in Fiscal Year 2005 = $6,993.56. This represents: Percent earnings 4.66% Increase in funds 6.66% SENIOR CENTER UPDATE Operations - Kopping Kopping provided summary reports showing the number of visits to the Senior Center during Fiscal Year 2005. Visits to Center sponsored programs and services or meetings offered at the Center by other groups increased by 1,224 and 2,968 respectively. Visits to the congregate dining program offered at the Center decreased by 3,600. Overall, there was an increase of 592 visits when compared to the previous fiscal year. Kopping also shared a summary report on services provided by the nutrition program for Fiscal Year 2005. This report showed a decrease in the number of meals served at the · Center and a significant increase in the number of meals prepared at the Center and distributed throughout Johnson County and in areas of Washington and Iowa Counties. Overall, the number of meals served by senior dining increased in FY05 by 11,913. Kopping plans to prepare annual report for FY05 that will include funding and participation numbers. Kopping's request for a temporary part-time receptionist has been approved. This request was in response to the loss of Sharon Stubbs as a HACAP employee. When her HACAP employment ends, Stubbs will be filling the recently approved part-time temporary position. Programs - Seal Seal invited the Commission to attend the 2005 Membership Appreciation Dinner scheduled for September 8, 2005. She also outlined classes and events scheduled during the fall quarter at the Senior Center. For a complete list of programs scheduled for September, October and November see the 2005 Fall Program Guide. Volunteers - Rogusky The 2005 quilt raffle generated a record number of tickets sold raising $2,431.69 for the Senior Center Operational Budget. This years booth at the Johnson County Fair generated a number of complaints about the set-up. Due to the high number of complaints about the prize wheel and trivia FINAL questions she plans to set-up the booth differently next year. Rogusky asked the Commission to give her suggestions for improving the booth. Rogusky reported on the Care for the Caregiver Lecture Series scheduled for Wednesday evenings during September and October. Memberships and Fundraising Report- Buhman Buhman reported that at the end of fiscal year 2005 there were 933 registered members who paid $22,028 in membership fees. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Motion: To adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Rowley/Kelly. FINAL Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year 2005 Name Term 1/24 2/15 3/15 4/26 5/18 6/21 7/19 8/16/ Expires Lori Benz 12/31/05 O/E X O/E X X X X O/E Jo Hensch 12/31/06 X X X X X X O/E X Jay Honohan 12/31/07 X X X X X X X X Betty Kelly 12/31/07 X O/E O/E X X X O/E X Sarah Maier 12/31/06 X X X X X X X X Charity Rowley 12/31/05 X X X X X X X X Nancy Wombacher 12/31/06 X O/E X X X X O/E O/E Key: X = Present O - Absent O/E= Absent/Excused NM - No meeting -- - Not a member FINAL MINUTES IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION EMMA HARVAT HALL 410 E. Washington Street Tuesday, August 23, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Scott ICing, Sara Baird, Jim McCue, Bev Witwer, Geoff Wilming, Paul Retish MEMBERS ABSENT: David Short, Billie Townsend STAFF MEMBERS: Dale Helling, Anne Burnside 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the meeting held July 26, 2005. It was noted that under Reports of Commissioners, Baird and Icing, rather than Baird and Retish, had reported on the pride festival. With that revision, the minutes of the meeting were approved. Approval of the Minutes of the meeting held August 17, 2005. It was noted that the draft minutes erroneously quoted Dulek as having said she did not concur there was probable cause to support the constructive discharge claim. With that revision, the minutes of the meeting were approved. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL. None. 4. NEW BUSINESS. a. Retish opened a discussion regarding a recent visit to Regency Trailer Court, located south of Iowa City but within Johnson County. Retish had not visited the Court before and was struck by how isolated the area is from community services. He estimates the Court houses up to one thousand people. After his visit, Retish contacted Johnson County Supervisor Terrence Neuzil to inquire about whether additional services could be offered to residents of the Court. Retish is awaiting a reply from Neuzil. Commissioners discussed whether some outreach from the Commission was appropriate. The possibility of inviting Court residents to participate in the next Building Blocks was mentioned. Follow- up on the matter should be placed on this Commission's agenda for September 2005. b. Witwer offered to serve as liaison to the University of Iowa Human Rights Commission Executive Board, in David Shorr's place. Burnside will notify all parties. c. Building Block to Employment. The next event is currently scheduled for October 18th. Retish noted this will need to be rescheduled. One problem is the Social Hall at the Recreation Center is not available that date. Another October date will be selected. McCue stated he would like the next program to include information regarding temporary employment. He suggested that Leon DeVote from Shelter House would be a valuable contact person on the topic. d. Music on Broadway. It is not clear at this time when or whether this event will be reprised. Retish reported that the Education Committee which had organized and sponsored the event last year, is in a state of flux. e. Winter Projects. Beckmann asked Commissioners to give thought to possible projects for Commission sponsorship in the coming year. This topic will be included on the September 2005 agenda. Beckmann would like to sponsor I or 2 movies again this year and believes the movies shown last year were very successful events. The landlord forum was also very successful. It was well- attended and provided valuable information. f. Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission. Icing reported his disappointment over the action of the Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission's recent decision not to co-sponsor a workshop against gay bullying. Retish inquired whether this Iowa City Commission could invite a member of the Cedar Rapids Commission to discuss the decision. Icing will provide a copy of the newspaper article to Burnside and she will contact the Director of the Cedar Rapids Commission. The Iowa City Commission sponsored a program against bullying in 2004-2005 and it was very successful. The program focused on elementary age children. Witwer stated she would like the Iowa City Commission to follow up on the anti-bullying program and focus this year on high school aged youth. g. Human Rights Breakfast. Burnside will call Townsend to inquire whether parking around the I.M.U. is projected to be restricted this year, as it was last year. ICing stated he must step down from the committee reviewing nominations due to a conflict in interest. Wilming offered to take Icing's place on the committee. Nominations will close at 5 p.m. on September 7th. Beckmann will contact committee members soon after so they can meet and select award recipients. In past years, news of the award winners and the Breakfast have been spread via the City website, posters, press releases and appearances on local radio programs. It was agreed we will utilize all of these methods again this year. 5. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS. Baird reported on a peace march sponsored by members of the local Sudanese community, being scheduled for Saturday, August 27th- Burnside will obtain information about the place and rime for the march and email it to the Commissioners. Witwer reported on an upcoming PBS program called I, the Mix which discusses the problems of bullying. Beckmann stated her daughter started attending junior high, giving Beckmann the opportunity to review the school district's orientation materials. Beckmann was very favorably impressed with the language of zero tolerance for bullying. The materials were quite clear about the behavior which was prohibited and the consequences for violating the policy. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Approximately 7:40 p.m. Board or Commission: Human Rights ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TERM 1/25 2/22 3/22 4/26 $/24' 6/2~1 7/26 8/17 8/23 9/27 10/25 11/22 12/27 NAME EXP. Lisa 1/1/07 X X X YA O/E NM X X x X Beckman NQ Paul 1/1/07 X X X YA O/E NM X O x O Retish NQ Geoff 1/1/07 X X O/E YA X NM X x O Wilming NQ Sara Baird 1/1/05 X O/E X YA X NM X X x X NQ David 1/1/06 X X O/E YA X NM X O/E o/e X Short NQ James 1/1/06 X X X YA X NM X x X MeCue NQ Billie 1/1/06 X X X YA X NM X o X Townsend NQ Bev 1/1/05 X X X YA O/E NM X x X Witwer NQ Scott King 1/1/05 X X X YA X NM X X x X NQ KEY: X = Present NMNQ - No meeting, no quorum O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not aMember