Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2004 Historic Preservation CommissionF. Please IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2004 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 p.m. Call to Order Public discussion of anything not on the agenda Items for Consideration (vote required) 1. Historic Review: a. 427 Brown Street b. 1152 Court Street c. 1011 Sheridan Avenue 2. Section 106 Review: 410 Iowa Avenue 3. Minutes: May 13, 2004 4. Design Review Subcommittee Items for Discussion 1. CNME for 1027 Court Street 2. CNME for 529 Brown Street Other Adjourn review these items prior to the meeting, Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section i4-4C. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due byWednesday the week prior to the meeting. For Staff Use: Date submitted ........................................................ [] Certificate of No Material Effect ~1 Certificate of Appropriateness [] Major review [] Intermediate review [] Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) [] Ow n e r ..,, ,W...~. ~., ,d. ~...D.,e..U.t.~ ].b...a.~ .............................................. Phone ..,..,~ .5...4.T,~ ..8..]..~. .................................................................... Address ...4. ~..].....]~...~..o...w.. ~...~..t..T..e...e..t ................................................... · deutelbaumC~mindsorine.com ema .................................. ~ .............. 4 ........ ~ .................................. ~1 Contractor .................................................................................. Address ........................................................................................... Phone ............................................................................................... email ................................................................................................. [] Consultant ................................................................................... Address ........................................................................................... Phone ............................................................................................... email ................................................................................................. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Site plan Floor plans [] Building elevations [] Photographs i-I Product information [] Other .............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property...4..~.?..~.°....w...~....S..~.~.t. ..................................... Use of property .......... ~.!..n.~!..e..~.~.l.~..T.~.s..i..d..~..n.~..e. ........................ Date constructed (if known) ....... ,].,?.~,]: ............................................. Historic Designation [] This property is a local historic landmark OR ~1 This property is located in the: [] Brown Street Historic District [] College Green Historic District [] East College Street Historic District [] Longfellow Historic District [] Summit Street Historic District [] Woodlawn Historic District [] Clark Street Conservation District [] College Hill Conservation District [] Dearborn Street Conservation District [] Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district~ this property is classified as: [] Contributing Noncontributing [] Nonhistoric Project Type [] Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement~ skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) [] Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) [] Construction of new building [] Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance [] Other Project description Remove porch columns Materials to be used Exterior appearance changes Staff Report May 21,2004 Historic Review for 427 Brown Street District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing This is a Colonial Revival house which was constructed in 1921. The applicant originally requested to remove the porch and reconstruct it using more typical porch columns and a hipped roof. Staff researched the property to determine if the porch was original to the house and based on the siding, foundation and overall degree to which the porch appears to be integrated with the house, staff feels that the porch is original. However, a former resident of Brown Street, Amy Smothers, recollects that the Doric columns were added in the 1980s, which would not be inconsistent with staff's findings. The applicant has proceeded to repair the porch and after removing the columns for repair, have decided that they prefer not to reinstall the columns. They are planning to construct a solid baluster with recessed panels. The baluster is less than 30 inches from the ground, and therefore does not require a building permit. This application is a request for a COA to allow the permanent removal of the columns. Applicable Guidelines: 7.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Demolition Recommended: · Removing additions or alterations that are not historic and that significantly detract from the building's historic character. Disallowed · Removing any histodc architectural feature, such as a porch, chimney, bay window, dormer, brackets or decorative trim, that is significant to the architectural character and style of the building. Staff Comments: Staff feels that this application complies with the guidelines and recommends that the columns be donated to the Salvage Barn. Recommendation: The application for a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of the Doric porch columns be approved. This application complies with the Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation and Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due byWednesday the week prior to the meeting. ForStaffUse: .~//~ ~ _ Certificate of Appropriateness '~ Malor review Intermediate review C] Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) ~ Owner ....'~.~...~.......~.~._~.._.~...!.,.1~...~...~ .................... Phone ....................................... Address ......~.. ~..~- .... ~.....~... ...................................... ..... .(,..0..~... ~.~Y.......I~......~ ............................ emai, ....~...~....~..~!..~..~ .~....~...~.~.[.:...~ ................. n C o nt ractor ....~!...~....~. _....~.....~. .......................... Address ....~..~*~......~.:....~..~......~L~...~ .................. ....... ......................... Phone .............................. email ............................................................................................... [-i Consultant ................................................................................. Address .......................................................................................... Phone ............................................................................................. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: I~ Site plan ~ Floor plans n Building elevations I~' Photographs E~ Product information n Other ............................................................................ If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property ....1.! ..~..~.........~..: .~....~.........~..?....'. ............... .... ....... LA:,. ........ ......................... Use of property ........ ~,.~..I,. ,~.....1~,...,~ .................................. Date constructed (if known) ...... L,~, .!.,,1~, ......................................... Historic Designation n This property is a local historic landmark OR C] This property is located in the: n Brown Street Historic District CI College Green Historic District [] East College Street Historic District ~ Longfellow Historic District n Summit Street Historic District n Woodlawn Historic District n Clark Street Conservation District n College Hill Conservation District n Dearborn Street Conservation District n Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: [] Contributing n Noncontributing n Nonhistoric Project Type ~i~ Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) ~i~ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) [] Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) n Construction of new building I-1 Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance [] Other Application for Historic Review 1152 Court Street Project Description. Alteration of a 1914 foursquare house on Court Street, with the addition of a small deck and stairs in rear. Alteration to include new HVAC system; some rewiring; exterior and interior paint; refigured interior walls creating a combination kitchen/dining area and a study; and new tile floors, pedestal sinks and inset medicine cabinets in ground floor and upstairs bathrooms. Existing double-hung windows to be reglazed; one new window to be placed in upstairs bathroom (east side), and three new windows to be placed in kitchen/dining area (west side, two above sink and one in dining area). Dimensions and trim of new windows to match existing windows and trim. (Please see attached photos of existing windows and trim.) Sliding French patio door to be placed at rear (north side) of house; choice of sliding, rather swinging, French door due to space constraints detailed below. Door trim to match existing window trim. Small deck with stairs for access to French patio door to be built on north side of house, replacing existing concrete stairs. Wood steps to be built to replace concrete steps on front of house. Sliding French patio doors are disallowed by Historic Preservation guidelines. We are requesting an exception due to space constraints, with the door design and placement as mitigating factors. The new dining area is 12'x14'. The French patio door on the north wall begins 1' from the east wall of the dining area and extends 6' to the west. In the dining area we will place a round dining table (4' diameter) and chairs (add 3' to diameter all around, for 10' total diameter). To maintain circulation from the passage between island and counter on west wall into the dining area, it is desirable to place the table at the east-west center of the room. Such placement leaves less than 3' clearance between a 3' swinging door and the perimeter of the space required for table and chairs. To avoid this conflict, we would like to place a sliding (rather than swinging) French patio door in the north wall. While an outswing door would eliminate this problem, it would also necessitate a larger deck than is necessary just for access purposes; we would prefer to keep this deck as small as possible. The Marvin sliding French patio door features wider rails and stiles than most new sliding patio doors, and resembles a swinging French patio door more than most sliding patio doors. (Please see below and attached product information) Finally, the patio door will be placed on the north (rear) side of the house. Historic Preservation guidelines allows sliding patio doors on the rear of houses in conservation districts, but not historic preservation districts. While this house is in a historic preservation district, the proposed door will be on the rear of the house and we request an exception in this case. Materials to be used All new windows and the new sliding French patio door are to be manufactured by Marvin Windows. (Please see attached product information.) The windows are Marvin's Ultimate Double Hung with aluminum cladding on exterior. Exterior cladding color will be chosen to match historically appropriate color scheme for exterior paint. Marvin sash are designed to match those in older homes, with wider rails and stiles than in most new sash. New window dimensions will be comparable to existing windows. The glass sizes in existing sash in double hung windows on ground floor range from 28-28" to 28-36" (width x height). The new sash glass sizes will be 16-26" (upstairs bathroom, same height as adjacent bedroom window), 24-14" (two windows, side by side above sink, Application for Historic Review 1152 Court Street same width as existing kitchen windows but extending down to backsplash on kitchen counter), and 36-28" (dining area). These glass sizes will maintain historically appropriate ratio of height to width throughout. The Marvin sliding French patio door will be 6'x6' 11" to match upper height of existing and new windows in kitchen and through ground floor. Exterior appearance changes New painted wood steps will replace concrete steps on the south side of house, facing the street. On the east side, a new window in the upstairs bathroom will be the same height as the adjacent bedroom window, but narrower. On the west side, the new windows above the sink will replace windows of similar design, maintaining the upper line of existing windows but adding height at the bottom; and the new window in the dining area will preserve the overall pattern of window height and height-width ratio of the existing windows. On the north side, the French patio door will be trimmed to match existing windows (with the exception of the picture window to the east, installed with minimal trim during 1964 addition). A small deck with stairs for access to French patio door will be added to north side. (Please see attached site plan, diagrams and detail of deck.) 2004-04-26 13:25 ", _ 319-351-3543 9~,~._,Jow &, P3 B27 Ultinmte Double Hung Page 1 of 2 home I request a catalog I at your service I log in I my idea file About Marvin I Dream J Windows I Doors I Remodel & Replace I Learn I Where to Buy About Marvin I Dream I Windows I Doors I Remodel & Replace I Learn Iwhere to Buy ULTIMATE DOUBLE HUNG By redefining a traditional favorite, we've changed the way people look at windows. Tntroducing the Marvin Ultimate Double Hung - state-of-the-art window design combined with the style and beauty of an earlier era. An extruded aluminum exterior Cladding is also available that is durable and detailed to look like finely milled wood. The interior is exceptionally beautiful, offering authentic-looking lines and hardware, plus jambs that feature more wood than you've ever seen in a double hung - at least in the last fifty years. Standard Features · 4 9/16" (116 mm) Jambs All wood Brick Mould Casing degree sill bevel Bare wood interior Ultimate Double Hu~ Photo Gallery Qp. ti~os. CAD Drawings [nsta!lation Instru Satin Taupe sash lock Clear, one-lite insulating glass Extruded aluminum clad exterior (clad only) Screen Vinyl nailing fin (wood only) http://homeowner.marvin.com/products/product.c fm?oid=F215AF94_0DD4_4090_AD6B6... 5/12/2004 Sliding French Door Page 1 of 1 home I request a catalog I at your service I log in I my idea file About Marvin I Dream I Windows J Doors SLTDTNG FRENCH DOOR Remodel & Replace I Learn Where to Buy Sliding French Door Photo Gallery The Marvin line of French doors is complemented by our sliding version - in fact, it's one of the most popular choices. Every inch a traditional French door, it features extra-wide stiles and tall bottom rails. With elegant touches such as our Satin Taupe handle that's ergonomically designed to cradle in your palm, the Sliding French Door adds a space-saving accent you can't find anywhere else. Design your sliding door down to the details with a wide array of options and flexibility, such as adding an Ultimate Hardware Package for maximum air and water-infiltration protection and tougher security. Select from various hardware finishes, exterior casing profiles and operating configurations (such as the impressive four- wide). And you can always add transoms or side lites to really reflect your own personal style. Standard Features · 4 9/16" (116 mm) jambs · All wood Brick Mould Casing (wood units} Bare wood interior · Multi-point lock with Satin Taupe handles Oak liner on Ultrex® sill Options Si¢~.~B~ ~pe¢~ Installation Instru · ~p.e.[~d, one-lite insulating glass · Vinyl drip cap and nailing fin (clad units) CONTACT US ! ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY J TERMS OF USE ©2004 Marvin V http://h~me~wner.marvin~c~m/pr~ducts/pr~duct~cfm?~id=F4FB535D~C885~4555~8F3A27..~ 5/12/2004 Staff Report Historic Review for 1152 Court Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing May 21,2004 This is a two-story Foursquare house constructed in 1914. The current owners are in the process of rehabilitating the house which includes reconfiguring the kitchen and dining areas. The one-story portion on the back of the house is a later addition. There is a vertical board separating the addition from the original two-story portion of the house. Likewise, there is a joint in the foundation and the window in the addition is more consistent with architectural styles of the 1950s or later. The applicants are requesting approval of a COA for three items: 1) Replacement of a window and door on the north side of the addition with a sliding French patio door; 2) Construction of a wood stoop and stairs outside the proposed new door; and 3) Replacement of three windows with Marvin metal clad windows. Attached is a more detailed description from the applicant regarding their proposal. Applicable Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa ClW Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Windows Recommended Historic windows · Preserving the historic windows by repairing sashes and frames. · Retaining historic window frames and replacing badly deteriorated sashes with new sashes that match the historic ones. Replacement windows · Replacing badly deteriorated windows with new ones that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided-lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. · Using new wood windows and sashes, if necessary, to replace histodc wood windows and sashes. The use of metal-clad, solid- wood windows is acceptable. Replacement windows and trim must accept paint. Divided-lights may be created with muntin-bars that are adhered to both sides of the glass, but not with snap-in muntin bars. 4.8 Doom Recommended New doors · Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. Disallowed · Installing sliding patio doom if they were not odginal to the building or consistent with the architectural style. 5.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Additions 5.2 Decks & Ramps Recommended Decks · Locating a new deck on the back of a primary building, opposite the street-facing facade and set in from the side walls at least 8 inches. · Designing decks so that the size, scale and location do not detract from the character of the district's rear yards, if significant to the district. · Attaching decks to the building in a manner that will not damage a historic exterior wall or, other historic materials, or cause wood siding to deteriorate. · Following the guidelines in section 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails. Staff Comments: When inspecting this property, staff noted that the contractor had already cut an opening in the wail for the patio doors and removed the windows that the applicant is proposing to replace. The Commission should not allow this premature work to influence the review of this application and your decision. If the Commission finds that the proposed alterations do not comply, the applicant will be responsible for replacing any removed material to its original configuration. 1) Patio door: The guidelines specifically disallow the installation of sliding patio doors. The intent of this guideline is to disallow a door that would never have been original to historic houses in Iowa City. However, the portion of the house where the door would be located appears to be an addition. The existing north window opening in the addition has a fixed picture window flanked by two narrow double-hung windows. This window configuration is more typical of post-war architectural styles, as are sliding patio doors. Under the Iowa City Guidelines for Additions, a new addition may have a sliding patio door provided it is not highly visible from the street. Therefore, if the applicant were proposing to construct this addition today, it would be allowed. Given that the sliding door will be installed in a later addition and the quality and design of the proposed sliding door, staff feels that the proposed sliding doors would not be contrary to the intent of the guidelines or the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. However, because muntin bars are not used in any of the historic windows, staff recommends that they are not used in the sliding doors either. 2) Wood stoop and stair: As illustrated in the attached drawing, staff feels that the proposed new wood stoop and stairs comply with the guidelines. 3) Windows: The applicant has indicated that they are repairing as many of the historic windows as possible. It is proposed that three of the windows be replaced with Marvin windows, which Comply with the guidelines. Recommendation: The application for a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of a sliding g/ass door, construction of a new rear stoop and stairs, and replacement of three windows be approved as proposed provided muntin bars are not used in the sliding g/ass doors. This application complies with the Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation and Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting. For Staff Use: Date submitted ....... ..~.~./../.~/'...~... ................... I-1 Certificate of No Material Effect ~ Certificate of Appropriateness Maior review [] Intermediate review [] Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) ~ Owner..~..~...~...~...~..e..~ ......... G....%..-i~.....~... ................................ ................................................... Address...L..D...L~, ........ ~,~.~.j.~.~,...v~...,....A.~ ................. ......................... ,......~.....r...t...........4...~..~..ht..~.. ................. email ...../~,..~.AL..~.....~.......~,'.......~...L.,...~....L~..z.I ....... .,.....L:'....,~. ........ [] Contractor .................................................................................. Address ........................................................................................... Phone ............................................................................................... email ................................................................................................. [] Consultant ................................................................................... Address ........................................................................................... Phone ............................................................................................... email ................................................................................................. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: [] Site plan [] Floor plans i-I Building elevations ~t~Photographs ~ Product information [] Other .............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of .... · ........ ....... ....................... Use of property ......~,~..~..~../2....~....C~,. ................................................ Date constructed (if known) .............................................................. Historic Designation This property is a local historic landmark OR This property is located in the: [] Brown Street Historic District [] College Green Historic District [] East College Street Historic District [] Longfellow Historic District (~ummit Street Historic District [] Woodlawn Historic District [] Clark Street Conservation District [] College Hill Conservation District [] Dearborn Street Conservation District [] Lucas~Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ~/~ Contributing [] Noncontributing [] Nonhistoric Project Type (]~l'~teration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) [] Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) [] Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) [] Construction of new building [] Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance [] Other Project description ........... e:~.m:~.~ ......... ..~..~.~..~...+... ......... l..~.......~..~.~..e.~ ............ ~&n.... ......... ...7...~ ......... ~...~....s.....~. ............................... Materials to be used ........ ,..~..~.,.e.~ ........... ~......~.Ldi:.~.~ ......... m..t.t.~ ......... ~..~ ......... ~.&~.a.~ ....... .~..~.~.~....A0.~.~d .... l.~ ......... ~..~d..L~., ............ m.i..~..~ ........... .~. rr ~.e~...~..~............~.....~.Ld~.~ ....... m.i..t.t ....... Z~'..... .................. ~,~,r. .......................... ~ n~,~: ............................................................................................................................... ~ ~,~ ~-~. Exterior appearance changes Staff Report Historic Review for 1011 Sheridan Avenue District: Summit Street Historic District Classification: Contributing May 21, 2004 This application is to side an existing garage with fiber cement board and add trim that would match the house. The garage originally was covered with asbestos siding with wide shiplap boards for sheathing. The garage was likely constructed sometime in the late 1940s when asbestos siding was at its peak usage. All the asbestos siding has been removed as well as the window sashes, garage doors and door trim. Because the shiplap boards are relatively rough cut and have numerous nail holes, the applicant believes these boards were likely salvaged from a barn and reused on this garage for sheathing. The applicant is requesting approval of a COA to allow the shiplap to be covered with fiber cement clapboard siding with a 4 inch exposure. The window and door trim will be lx4 cedar. Applicable Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations 4.5 Sidinq Recommended Wood substitutes · Substituting a material in place of wood siding only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood, The substitute material must be durable, accept paint and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. In many applications, fiber cement board is an approved wood substitute. 6.0 Iowa City Guidelines for New Construction 6.2 New Outbuildinqs Recommended Desiqn · Constructing new outbuildings that reflect the style of the primary structure. Staff Comments: This property is a contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. This classification is based on the historic value and integrity of the primary structure, which is a Queen Ann house. At the time the Summit Street Historic District was nominated to the NRHP, outbuildings were not classified in the nomination documents. Due to the lack of historic integrity of the garage, staff feels that it should be considered a noncontributing structure. However, the Handbook does not contain specific guidelines for a noncontributing outbuildings in a historic district. For the construction of new outbuildings, it does state that they should reflect the style of the primary structure. If this were an entirely new structure, this would require a steeper roof pitch and ornamentation similar to the house. Staff feels, that adding siding and trim to the shell of this existing garage so that it is more similar to the house is a reasonable compromise and is not contrary to any of the historic preservation guidelines. Recommendation: The application for a certificate of appropriateness to reside an existing noncontributing garage using fiber cement board lap siding and wood trim to match the house be approved as proposed provided the garage door complies with the historic preservation guidelines. This application complies with the Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation and Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Staff Comments Section 106 Review for 410 Iowa Avenue Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places May 21,2004 Please find attached information regarding the Section 106 process. The Historic Preservation Commission is required to comment regarding the effect the proposed undertaking will have on the historic resource. Figure 1 on page 16 of the attached information outlines the basic steps of Section 106 review. The criteria of effect and adverse effect is provided in Figure 2, page 25. Project Summary: United Action for Youth, 410 Iowa Avenue, Iowa City, IA When UAY opens its new Youth Center at 355 Iowa Avenue it will move the Teen Parent Program and Family Counseling offices that are currently at 422 Iowa Avenue into the present Youth Center location at 410 Iowa Avenue. This proposal is to help UAY redesign the entrance to the property at 410 Iowa to be fully accessible and redesign space to accommodate the needs of the Teen Parents, infants and families. Included in the redesign will be efforts to modify the recording studio to be an accessible child-care area; convert the equipment booth to a fully accessible health office; and add an accessible children's bathroom. In this redesign, an additional office for the Teen Parent staff will be added where the current data office has been, and a reception office built immediately inside the re-designed entrance. The overall project also includes repairs to the front of the building, improved winterization of the windows and an effort to highlight the fact that the house at 410 Iowa is identical to the birth home of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. located in Atlanta. The primary feature of the redesign is to build a new entrance to the facility that includes an automated door and direct access into the main floor and reception area of the building. A children's bathroom and child-care off~ce will be added by modifying what is now a recording studio for youth. July 1, 2004 October -December November January-April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 Beginning of City Fiscal Year and Project Start Date Move Youth Center operation Complete redesign and request bids Reconstruct entrance Window replacement, exterior repainted Move Teen parent program/counseling services UAY continues to serve large numbers of Iow moderate income households in Iowa City, which is a basis for its on-going CDBG support for services at the Youth Center. The new Youth Center at 355 Iowa Avenue provides a great environment in which both counseling and youth development programs are combined and the redesign of the existing Youth Center will provide an enhanced environment for the Teen Parent Program and other counseling services at UAY. This project will allow UAY to further enhance this as a welcoming and accessible environment with expanded child care and health programs, consistent with the objectives outlined in CITY STEPS, (pp 98-100). roo~ ZI °i t~gL e~t Ttg 1'V3 8~:OT tO0~,:~0-7'~'''~ Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and seek comments from an independent reviewing agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The purpose of Section 106 is to avoid unnecessary harm to historic properties from Federal actions. Now commonly known as the "Section 106 process," the procedure for meeting Section 106 requirements is defined in regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800). These revised regulations, which became effective October 1, 1986, were published in the Federal Register on September 2, 1986, at 51FR 31115. This booklet provides a discussion of the Section 106 review process and briefly explains each of its steps. Origins of Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act SOME BACKGROUND ON SECTION 106 The concerns that resulted in Section 106 began to develop during the 1950's and 1960's, when Federal law applied to a limited number of nationally significant historic properties. During those decades, hundreds of Federal projects -- such 'as highways, dams, and urban renewal -- were completed with little regard for historic resources valued by the communities in which they were located. As a result, those Federal projects destroyed or damaged thousands of historic properties, much to the dismay of local citizens. Congress observed this phenomenon across the country and recognized that new legislation was needed to ensure that Federal agencies considered historic properties in their planning. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) was passed to address these concerns and has since been amended and strengthened several times. The cornerstone of Federal preservation law, NHPA established today's national historic preservation program, which includes elements for identification, assistance, and protection. What Section 110 of NHPA requires of Federal agencies What Section 106 of NHPA requires of Federal agencies Identification is coordinated by the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO's), who are appointed by each governor. SHPO's develop comprehensive preservation plans for their States, direct their States' surveys and inventories of historic properties, and nominate properties to the National Register of Historic Places, which is maintained by the Department of the Interior. Identification is also carried out by Federal agencies, local communities, certified local government historic preservation programs, and private industry as part of project and program planning. Assistance under NHPA is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior, which has authority to make grants-in-aid and which offers published technical guidance on many preservation issues. Other Federal assistance for historic preservation is available through tax incentives for rehabilitation and the use of various Federal grant programs to achieve preservation objectives. Protection is generally integrated into the planning process for Federal actions that may affect historic properties. Sections 110 and 106 of NHPA assign responsibilities to all Federal agencies. Under Section 110, all Federal agencies must carry out their programs in accordance with, and in furtherance of, national historic preservation policy; designate historic preservation officers to coordinate the agencies' activities under the act; identify and preserve historic properties under their ownership or control; and make efforts to minimize harm to National Historic Landmarks. Section 106 requires each agency to take into account the effects of 'its actions on historic properties. Furthermore, an agency must afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation -- an independent Federal agency created by NHPA -- au opportunity to comment on any of the agency's undertakings that could affect historic properties. The language of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 470f) follows: Evolution of the Section 106 commenting process Easic Section 106 review steps The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect Jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking. Section 106 applies to all properties already listed in the National Register, to properties formally determined eligible for listing, and to properties not formally determined eligible but that meet specified eligibility criteria. This means that properties that have not yet been listed, and even properties that have not yet been discovered, can be eligible for consideration under Section 106. While Section 106 of NHPA tells agencies they must take the effects of their undertakings into account and afford the Council an opportunity to comment, it does not tell them how. Acting under the authority of Section 211 of NHPA, the Council has developed a process for carrying out Section 106 responsibilities. This is set forth in regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties," at 36 CFR Part 800. The first Section 106 procedures were issued in 1968. They evolved over the years and were recast as regulations in 1979. Recently revised and reissued, the current regulations took effect on October 1, 1986. An annotated version of these regulations is available from the Council. The Section 106 review process includes steps for identifying and evaluating historic properties, assessing the effects of the agency's proposed action on the historic properties, and, if there is a harmful (adverse) Principles of Section 106 review effect, consultation about ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate that harm. Consultation always involves the agency and the SHPO (unless the SHPO declines to participate), and often includes the'Council and other interested persons. Typically, such consultation results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which sets out specific steps for avoiding or reducing harm to historic properties. When an MOA has been accepted by the Council, it serves as the Council's comment. In those cases in which the consulting parties cannot reach agreement, consultation may be terminated and the agency may request Council comments directly. In the early years of Section 106 review, the steps of identification, assessment of effect, and mitigation were almost universally applied on a project-by-project basis, and effects were considered for a particular location or site. Under current regulations, agencies may obtain Council comment on a programmatic basis, eliminating the need for case-by-case Council involvement. This approach saves time and money for both the agency and the Council and tends to institution~ltze preservation concerns in agency program operation. As a result, the programmatic approach in many instances accomplishes historic preservation objectives even more effectively than case-by-case review. Whether an agency seeks Council comment on a case-by-case or programmatic basis, the principles involved are the same. Inherent in the philosophy underlying Section 106 is the belief that a built environment in which old and new blend harmoniously is the best in which to live and work. At the same time, this philosophy recognizes that pure preservation of every historic property is unrealistic and not in the public interest. Hence, the Section 106 process does not require preservation in every case. Nor does it give the Council veto power over an agency's actions. What it does require is full consideration of preservation values by Federal agencies. Section 106 "solutions" resulting from the process can range from the purest preservation to unmitigated loss of a property. However, Section 106 does ensure that an agency's decision about how to treat historic properties Properties subject to Section 106 results from meaningful consideration of historic values and of options available to protect the properties. In short, the Section 106 review process ensures that an agency weighs preservation into the balance with the projected benefit of the completed undertaking, costs, and other factors. Another Section 106 principle has to do with timing. It is important that consideration of historic properties occur in the early stages of project planning so that preservation concerns can receive thorough consideration as a project is planned. Early preservation review also permits modifications to a project while they are relatively easy to accomplish and reduces the potential for conflict and delay. Because Section 106 extends not only to National Register-listed properties but to eligible unlisted (and especially in the case of archeology, often even undiscovered) properties as well, it is ~ssential to understand what qualifies a property for National Register listing. Department of the Interior regulations describe the National Register criteria for listing this way [36 CFR Section 60.4]: The quality of significance in American history, architecture,.archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that (a) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the b~oad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory. SECTION 106 applies to any property listed in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places, the official list of the Nation's cultural resources worthy of preservation. Buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts are included in the National Register for their importance in American history, architecture, archeology, culture, or engineering. Properties included on the National Register range from large-scale, monumentally proportioned buildings such as the Baltimore Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore, Maryland, to smaller scale, regionally distinctive buildings such as the Toyo Theater, Honolulu, Hawaii. Photo credits: Toyo Theatre courtesy of Ha~i State Historic Preservation Office/R~ck Baltimore Pe%nsylvania Station eourtesy of Federal Rail~y A~u~istration/~teve Rosenthal. 10 Owned and admin~stered by the U.S. Coast Guard, the Heceta Head Lighthouse is one of nine historic lighthouses remaining on the Oregon coast. The Eureka Lily Headframe is the only 4-post headframe of its type listed in the Tint£c Mining District Multiple Resource Area near Eureka, Utah. The Poplar Grove Tide Mill, in operation until 1912, is the only known tide mill still standing in Virginia. This archeological site on the Old Hampton waterfront in Virginia was excavated in connection with an Urban Development Action Grant project that was reviewed under Section 106. 11 An industrial structure associated with the oil industry, the Sinclair Loading Rack is located along an Oklahoma railroad, where it could fill large tank storage cars easily and quickly. The Pleasant Hill Historic District in Macon, Georgia is a significant historic Black neighborhood. Photo credits: H~ceta ~d L~chthou~e courtesy of Oregon State Historic Preservation Office; Eureka Lily Headfrmm~ courtesy of Utmh State Histor~ Society/Paul Mogem~en; Poplar Grove Tide M~l~ courtesy of Virginia I~ivision of Historic L~k~; Old H~ton Waterfront archeology site courtesy of MAAR A~soctates; Sinc~r Loading Rack courtesy of Okl~ H~torical S~ciety/Mark Miller; Pl~esant Hill Historic D~strict courtesy of C~orgia Depar~nt of Natural Reso~rces/J~rms R. Lockbart. Federal actions subject to Section 106 Agencies subject to Section 106 The National Register criteria are broadly drawn, in response to clear Congressional direction that locally valued places be included. The criteria require that a property retain integrity. In addition, it must be associated with historic lives or events; historically, architecturally, or artistically distinctive; or valuable as a source of information. Properties are nominated to the National Register by SHPO's, through certified local government historic preservation programs, and by Federal agencies (pursuant to Section 110 of NHPA). There are more than 45,000 listings, many of which are districts, and more are being nominated daily. The word "undertaking" was used deliberately in NHPA and in Council regulations to connote a broad range of Federal actions. The statutory language refers specifically to undertakings over which Federal agencies hay either "direct" or "indirect" jurisdiction. Three kinds of undertakings are alluded to: Federal undertakings (actions undertaken directly by a Federal agency); federally assisted undertakings (for example, activities receiving direct Federal financial assistance or such indirect assistance as loan guarantees and mortgage insurance); and federally licensed undertakings (undertakings requiring permits or other entitlements from Federal agencies). In its regulations, the Council has defined the term "undertaking" to include Federal actions that can result in changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such properties are located in the area to be affected by an action. [Section 800.2(o)] The intent of this defln~tion is to make it clear that actions which by their nature have no potential to affect historic properties (for example, providing hot lunches to school children or installing new radios in police cars) need not be subjected to Section 106 review, even though they are federally supported. The agency responsible for meeting Section 106 requirements can be any component of the Federal ~overnment directly or indirectly responsible for an undertaking. Most departments have delegated the responsibility for Section 106 compliance to their constituent bureaus and offices, and in many instances these units in 13 Effect of Council regulations Counterpart regulations The relationship of Section 106 to NEPA and other authorities turn look to their field offices to ensure compliance. For certain programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, notably Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG), the Rental Rehabilitation Program, and the Housing Development Grant Program (HoDAG), compliance responsibility has been delegated by statute to the local governments as recipients of the grants. As Federal regulations, the procedures set forth in 36 CFR Part 800 are binding on all agencies, including the Council. While the regulations specifically state at Section 800.3(b) that the procedures may be implemented in a flexible manner by agencies, agencies as well as the Council must meet the purposes of Section 106 of NHPA. Failure to do so may lead to litigation. Agencies may work with the Council's professional staff to develop counterpart regulations designed to meet the objectives of Section 106 while reflecting particular agency needs. When concurred in by the Council, counterpart regulations substitute for the Council's regulations. [Section 800.15] Council regulations encourage maximum coordination with the environmental review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is typical for agencies to design the draft environmental impact statement or draft environmental assessment so that it can also serve as part of the required documentation during Section 106 consultation. Normally an agency describes the outcome of the Section 106 review process in its final environmental impact statement or final environmental assessment. Undertakings that do not require an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment under NEPA still are subject to Section 106 if they have the potential to affect historic properties. The Council suggests coordination between Section 106 and other statutes, as well. Council regulations encourage agencies to design determinations and agreements so that they also meet requirements of such other authorities as the ~rcheological and Historic Preservation Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, 14 Coordination with consideration of social and cultural values Coordination with State and local reviews Section 110 of NHPA, and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. [Section 800.14 ] Special social and cultural values related to historic properties are Often important to Native American groups and local communities. Also, historic properties sometimes receive special consideration under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. The regulations encourage agencies to consider intangible social and cultural values related to historic properties. The regulations provide for traditional cultural leaders and other Native Americans to be brought into the consultation process when historic properties of importance to them may be affected. [Sections 800.1(c)(2)(ili), 800.4(a)(1)(iii), 800.5(a), and 800.5(e)(1)(ii); see also Sections 800.7, 800.11, and 800.13] Section 106 review is a Federal requirement separate and apart from any environmental or planning reviews required under State and local laws and ordinances. Coordination of Section 106 review with State and local review is recommended, however, to avoid redundant efforts. Under some circumstances, Section 106 review and review under State and local laws may be explicitly combined. Section 800.7 of the regulations permits SHPO's to establish review processes which, when approved by the Council, can stand in place of Section 106 review. Such processes could be identical with processes established to carry out the requirements of a State historic preservation or environmental statute. Section 800.1(c)(2)(i) of the regulations permits a local govermment whose historic preservation program has been certified pursuaqt to Section 101(c)(1) of NHPA to assume the duties of the SHPO when the local government, the SHPO, and the Council so agree. A local government assuming such duties could carry them out in coordination with functions required by a local ordinance. HOW SECTION 106 REVIEW WORKS Consideration of the effects of Federal undertakings on historic properties under Section 106 consists of five basic steps: identification and evaluation of the historic properties; assessment of the undertaking's 15 effects; consultation to avoid, reduce, or minimize adverse effects; Council comment; and the final agency decision about whether and how to proceed. The remainder of this booklet briefly explains each step of the Section 106 review process. Bracketed references throughout refer the reader to the Council's current regulations. 16 I 17 Agency responsibility for identification Determining that an action constitutes an undertaking STEP 1: IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE HISTORIC PROPERTIES Carrying out the tasks involved in the identification of historic properties -- properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register -- is the responsibility of the agency official with direct or indirect Jurisdiction over the undertaking. [Section 800.4] When the undertaking involves providing assistance or issuing a license, the agency may rely on the applicant to assist in the identification of historic properties, but the final responsibility for identification is the agency's. [Section 800.1(c)(l)] Council regulations state that efforts to identify historic properties should follow the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation." [Section 800.4(b)] The following discussion clarifies how the agency can receive help in completing its identification responsibilities. Before beginning identification work, the agency first establishes that its proposed action constitutes an "undertaking." [Section 800.4(a)(1)]' That is, the agency determines whether the proposed action could result in changes in the character or use of any historic properties, in the event any such properties are located in the area of potential effects. [Section 800.2(o)] It is important to note that determining whether a given Federal action constitutes an "undertaking" does not require that an agency know from the outset that specific historic properties will be subject to change as a result of the action. Considering whether an action could affect historic properties is a prospective activity in which the agency considers whether the action is of a sort that could affect historic properties, if any are there to be affected. For example, a program designed to provide medical counseling to Federal workers would not normally be viewed as having the potential to affect historic properties, and so would not be an undertaking for purposes of Section 106. BUt, if the program could result in the modification of buildings to provide space in which to carry out such counseling, the program Determining the area of potential effects Assessing information needs would be an undertaking, because if any of the buildings were historic, the program would have the potential to affect them. The agency must also determine the "area of potential effects," which is defined in Council regulations as "the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist." [Section 800.2(c)] It is not necessary to know that the area in question contains historic properties, or even to suspect that such properties exist, in order to recognize the area as the area of potential effect. For example, the area in which a federally assisted construction project will disturb land or result in the demolition or alteration of buildings is always part of the area of potential effect, because if any historic properties exist there, they will surely experience change as a result of the project. The area of potential effects need not be a contiguous area; it can include multiple alternative project sites or multiple areas in which possible changes are anticipated. For example, the area of potential effects of a highway construction project might include alternative construction corridors; locations from which borrow material might be obtained; areas where access might be provided to archeological sites, resulting in their disturbance by artifact seekers; areas where visual or audible changes could occur; and areas where the project could result in modified traffic patterns that might affect the livability or commercial viability of historic districts. After determining that its action constitutes an undertaking and establishing the area of potential effects, the agency begins the first task involved in identification, which is assessing what information it needs in order to identify historic properties. [Section 800.4(a)] This involves review of all available information that can help in determining whether there might be historic properties in the area of potential effects. Using the published One readily available source of information on National Register known historic properties is the published 19 Other sources of information and advice National Re~ister of Historic Places. Single copies are available from: National Register, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. The most recent edition was published on February 6, 1979; annual updates of new National Register listings are published in the Federal Register each February or March. In addition, listings of properties already determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be eligible for the National Register are published periodically in the Federal Re~ister. Information on National Register listings may also be obtained from the SHPO. Although the published National Register is an important source of information on what is already known about the historic resources of an area, it cannot be assumed to be comprehensive. Historic properties are constantly being discovered and added to the National Register; many others remain to be discovered. Thus, the fact that an area of potential effect contains no properties presently included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register does not mean that it contains no historic properties subject to review under Section 106. Therefore, in addition to reviewing information on properties already recorded in the National Register, the agency must consult other sources. The SHPO, a primary source for information, can advise the agency on previous identification studies pertinent to the area, previously recorded historic properties not listed in the National Register, and the likelihood that undiscovered or unrecorded properties exist in the area. The SHPO can provide information on properties being nominated and on State registers or State inventories. Other sources of information include the State Archeologist (where such an official exists), local academic institutions and museums, historical and archeological societies, local governments, Indian tribes, and published or unpublished background studies pertinent to the area. [Section 800.4(a)( 1)(i)] The regulations require that the agency also seek information from local governments, Indian tribes, public and private organizations, and others who may have knowledge of historic properties in the area or who may be concerned about such properties. This serves two 2O Locating historic properties purposes: it aids the agency in determining what it needs to do to identify historic properties, and it permits interested persons to express their interests in historic properties early in the agency's planning process so they can be considered in a timely ~anner. The agency is encouraged to use its existing planning processes to seek such information; the regulations do not require that special new processes be established to obtain it. [Section 800.4(a)(1)(lii)] Agencies are encouraged, however, to examine their administrative processes to ensure that they provide adequately for this and other forms of public participation, and to consult with the Council to develop improved processes, if impediments to public participation are found to exist. [Section 800.1(b)] The agency must also request the SHPO's views about whether further actions are needed to identify historic properties -- for example, field surveys or additional background research. [Section 800.4(a)(1)(ii)] Based on its review of available information and the advice of the SHPO, the agency then decides whether any further information gathering will be necessary to identify historic properties. Typical further actions include field surveys and the use of predictive models, which are discussed below. [Section 800.4(a)(2)] Based on its assessment of existing information and further needs, the agency then moves on to the second task, which is to make a reasonable and good faith effort to actually locate historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking and to gather enough information to evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. This effort is carried out in consultation with the SHPO and should be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation." The specific standards and guidelines within that document that are applicable to this stage of Section 106 review are the Secretary's "Standards and Guidelines for Preservation Planning," published at 48 FR 44716-44720, September 29, 1983, and the Secretary's "Standards and Guidelines for Identification," published at 48 FR 44720-44723, September 29, 1983. This effort should also be consistent with the agency's program for carrying out the identification requirements set 21 Surveys and predictive models Identifying classes of historic properties forth in Section l10(a)(2) of NHPA, for which guidelines are being developed by the Secretary of the Interior. [Section 800.4(b)] Additional useful guidance about surveys can be found in two National Park Service publications: "Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning" and "The Archeological Survey: Methods and Uses." "Guidelines for Local Surveys" is available at no charge by requesting National Register Bulletin ~24 from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127. "The Archeological Survey" is available from the National Technical Information Service by sending $16.95 plus $3.00 for shipping and handling to NTIS, 5285 Fort Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; indicate identification ~PB284061 on the order. If a survey is needed, the SHPO will probably be able to provide State or regional guidelines for surveying and forms for recording survey methods and properties discovered. The SHPO may also be able to help identify individuals, institutions, and firms that can do survey work under contract. Some SHPO's conduct survey work themselves on behalf of Federal agencies, an activity authorized by Section llO(g) of NHPA. When large areas of potential effects are involved, an agency may find it useful to prepare a predictive model -- that is, a set of predictions about where historic properties of different kinds are likely to occur, based on background data -- and then to orient its survey work to test this model. Reports of completed surveys, as well as of any other original identification research, should always be filed with the SHPO -- even if no historic properties were found -- so that the results can be incorporated into the SHPO's statewide inventory of historic properties. Although this is not a requirement of the regulations, it helps the SHPO build up a body of information and will help prevent redundant future studies of the same area. In some cases, agencies may find it useful to identify and consider "classes" of historic properties. For example, if an undertaking will have difficult-to-define effects on a large area -- as would be the case when a federally 22 Evaluating eligibility When the agency and SHPO agree about eligibility assisted water project makes it possible to begin irrigation agriculture in a large valley, or when a federally assisted housing program will rehabilitate buildings throughout a city -- it may not be feasible to identify all individual properties subject to effect prior to project approval. It may, however, be possible to predict that the undertaking will affect certain kinds of archeological sites in the agricultural valley or certain kinds of historic buildings in the city. Knowing that such effects will occur, it may be possible to develop systems to protect the significant characteristics of such properties. Thus the fact that it may not always be feasible to identify specific historic properties does not mean that an agency cannot carry out its responsibilities under Section 106. When properties are found that may be historic but have never actually been evaluated, it is the agency's responsibility to complete the final task, which is to ascertain whether the properties are eligible for the National Register. To determine whether a property is eligible, the agency reviews the property with reference to the National Register listing criteria, which are listed on page 8 of this booklet. The regulations require that agencies also follow the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Evaluation," published at 48 FR 44723-44726. [Section 800.4(c)(1)] In addition, the regulations require that the agency's determination be made in consultation with the SHPO, but if the SHPO does not provide views as to the eligibility of properties, the SHPO is presumed to agree with the agency's determination. [Section 800.4(c)(5)] In ev~luating properties for historic significance, agencies should be aware that the passage of time or changing perceptions of significance may Justify reevaluation of properties that were previously determined to be eligible or ineligible for the National Register. [Section 800.4(c)(1)] The agency and SHPO consult about eligibility for each property within the area of potential effects that may be historic. If the agency and SHPO agree that a property is eligible, it is treated as eligible for purposes of Section 106 [Section 800.4(c)(2)]; if they agree that a 23 When disagreement about eligibility occurs Agency action when no historic properties are found Agency action when historic properties are found property is not eligible, it is treated as not eligible for purposes of Section 106. [Section 800.4(c)(3)] Others may request the Council to review eligibility findings, in which case the Council will refer the matter to the Secretary of the Interior. [Section 800.6(e)(3)] If the agency and the SHPO cannot agree about National Register eligibility, the agency must obtain a formal determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register, who acts on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance With applicable National Park Service regulations. If either the Council or the Secretary so requests -- as either might after reviewing an agency/SHPO agreement about eligibility -- the agency must obtain a formal determination of eligibility from the Keeper. [Section 800.4(c)(4)] Once the agency has completed the identification tasks described above, the agency may find that there are no historic properties that may be affected by its proposed action. In that event, the agency: o Must provide documentation to the SHPO that it has found no historic properties; o Should notify other interested parties, such as those with whom the agency has consulted during identification, of the same thing; and o Must make pertinent documentation available to the public. [Section 800.4(d)] When the agency has found no historic properties, it has completed the Section 106 process once it has taken the above actions. [Section 800.4(d)] However, any member of the public may question the agency's determination that there are no historic properties and may request a Council review of that finding. The Council must conduct its. review within 30 days of such a request; the Council's finding may cause the agency to reconsider its finding of "no historic properties." [Section 800.6(e)] If the agency finds one or more historic properties that its undertaking could affect, the agency proceeds to Step 2 in the Section 106 process, assessing effects. [Section 800.4(e)] 24 STEP 2: ASSESS EFFECTS Once the agency has identified historic properties, it then determines whether its proposed activity could affect the properties in any way. Again, the agency consults with the SHPO to decide this and takes into account the views of any interested persons. [Section 800.5(a)] The agency's Judgment about whether there could be an effect is based on the criteria of effect and adverse effect, which are found in the Council's regulations. [Section 800.91 25 Figure 2: CRITERIA OF EFFECT AND ADVERSE EFFECT Criterion of Effect: [Section 800.9(a)] "An undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the undertaking may alter characteristics of the property that may qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. For the purpose of determining effect, alteration to features of a property's location, setting, or use may be relevant depending on a property's significant characteristics and should be considered." Criteria of Adverse Effect: [Section 800.9(b)] "An undertaking is considered to have an adverse effect when the effect on a historic property may diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: (I) Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property; (2) Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's setting when that character contributes to the property's qualification for the National Register; (3) Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting; (4) Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction; and (5) Transfer, lease, or sale of the property." Exceptions to the Criteria of Adverse Effect: [Section 800.9(c)] "Effects of an undertaking that would otherwise be found to be adverse may be considered as being not adverse for the purpose of these regulations: (1) When the historic property is of value only for its potential contribution to archeological, historical, or architectural research, and when such value can be substantially preserved through the conduct of appropriate research, and such research is conducted in accordance with applicable professional standards and guidelines; (2) When the undertaking is limited to the rehabilitation of buildings and structures and is conducted in a manner that preserves the historical and architectural value of affected property through conformance with the Secretary's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings"; or (3) When the undertaking is limited to the transfer, lease, or sale of a historic property, and adequate restrictions or conditions are included to ensure preservation of the property's significant historic features." 26 Applying the criteria of effect and adverse effect Agency action for a finding of no effect Basically, if the undertaking could chan~e in any way the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register, for better or for worse, it is considered to have an "effect." If the potential Federal activity could diminish the integrity of such characteristics, it is COnsidered to have an "adverse effect." Effects may occur at the same time and place as the undertaking, or they may occur later than or at a distance from the location of the undertaking. For example, highway construction that may cause the demolition of buildings or the disruption of archeological sites clearly has the potential to affect historic properties in the area or areas the highway traverses. If it can reasonably be anticipated that the highway, once built, will cause or accelerate changes in land use or traffic patterns in other areas, these changes are also potential effects of the action. The latter kind of effect is sometimes called "indirect," though this terminology is not used in the Council's regulations. When applying the criteria of effect and adverse effect, there are three possible findings: o No effect: There is no effect of any kind (that is, neither harmful nor beneficial) on the historic properties; o No adverse effect: There could be an effect, but the effect would not be harmful to those characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register; or o Adverse effect: There could be an effect, and that effect could diminish the integrity of such characteristics. If there is no effect on historic properties~ the a~enc¥ must: o Notify the SHPO and any interested persons who have made their concerns known to the agency (for example, parties with whom the agency has consulted during identification) that there has been a finding of no effect; and o Compile the documentation that supports the finding and make that documentation available for public inspection. Agency action when an effect is found Agency action for a finding of no adverse effect Submitting notice with summary documentation to the Council when SHPO concurs 27 Unless the SHPO objects to the finding of no effect within 15 days or the agency decides to reconsider its finding after review by the Council under Section 800.6(e)(1), these actions complete the agency's Section 106 responsibilities. [Section 800.5(b)] If the agency determines that there is an effect, or if the SHPO objects to the agency's finding of no effect, the agency must consider whether the effect is adverse, using the criteria of adverse effect in the regulations. This is done in consultation with the SHPO. [Sections 800.5(c), 800.5(b), and 800.9(b)] If there is effect~ but the effect is not adverse~ the a~enc¥ has a choice. It may either: o Obtain the SHPO's concurrence with the finding of no adverse effect and then notify the Council with summary documentation, which it must also make available for public inspection [Section 800.5<d)< ~)<i)l; or o Submit the finding of no adverse effect directly to the Council for a 30-day review period and notify the SHPO of its action. In this case, the agency must submit specific documentation spelled out in Section 800.8(a) of the regulations. [Section 800.5(d)(1)(ii)] When the SHP0 concurs with the agency's finding of no adverse effect,the agency should include the following summary documentation when notifying the Council: o A map or other documentation showing the area of potential effects; o The name and a brief description of the undertaking; o A brief summary of the historic properties subject to effect; o A brief explanation of why the undertaking will have no adverse effect on the historic properties involved; o The written concurrence of the SHPO; and o The views of interested persons, if any. Submitting no adverse effect documentation for Council review without mandatory SHPO concurrence Council response to a determination of no adverse effect When the agency chooses to have the Council review an agency's finding of no adverse effect (without mandatory SHPO concurrence), Section 800.8(a) of the regulations prescribes the following documentation to be sent to the Council: o A description of the undertaking, including photographs, maps, and drawings, as necessary; o A description of historic properties that may be affected by ~e undertaking; o A description of the efforts used to identify historic properties; o A statement of how and why the criteria of adverse effect were found inapplicable; and o The views of the State Historic Preservation Officer, affected local governments, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and the public, if any were provided, as well as a description of the means employed to solicit those views. The Council's 30-day review period does not commence until this documentation has been provided. The Council may object to determinations of no adverse effect, whether made with the concurrence of the SHPO or submitted directly to the Council. If the Council does not object to the agency's determination within 30 days after it receives notice, the agency has completed its Section 106 requirements. [Section 800.5(d)(2)] If the Council does object, it may propose changes in or conditions to the agency's finding. If the~agency accepts these changes, it bas completed its Section 106 requirements. [Section 800.5(d)(2)] If the agency does not accept proposed Council changes or if the Council objects to the finding without proposing changes, the effect is considered adverse, and the agency then proceeds to Step 3 of the Section 106 process, consultation. [Section 800.5(d)(2)] If the agency requires the Council's response to a determination of no adverse effect in less time than the 30 days allowed by the 29 Agency fulfillment of conditions Agency action for a finding of adverse effect regulations, the agency should contact the Council to make special arrangements. In reaching a determination of no adverse effect, an agency may specify that the undertaking will be carried out in accordance with particular conditions (for example, that construction specifications will be reviewed and approved by the SHPO), or it may agree to such conditions when proposed by the SHPO or by the Council, as described above. If the agency has committed itself to conditions in this way, it must honor its commitments as .it proceeds with its undertaking. [Section 800.5(d)(2)] If there is adverse effect~ the agency proceeds with Step 3 of the Section 106 process, consultation. [Section 800.5(e)] MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 13, 2004- 7:00 P.M. EMMA HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER Draft MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Justine Zimmer STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Greg Littin, Jon Ringen CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Historic Review: 1223 Seymour Avenue. McCafferty stated that this is an application for the demolition of the current garage and the construction of a two-car garage on a contributing property in the Longfellow District. She showed a photograph of the view of the backyard of the property. McCafferty said the current garage is considered a historic structure. She said that at this time there is really no place to put a new garage and keep the present one because of the gazebo in the backyard. McCafferty said the garage also has structural. She stated that given the limited space and the fact that there are structural issues, she recommends approval of the application. McCafferty said the new garage would be compatible with the house and would comply with all the guidelines for outbuildings. McCafferty said she discussed using one single garage door versus two doors with the applicant. She said the owner prefers to have one door for maneuverability in order to park his vehicle, which is rather large. Sueppel asked the owner what type of garage door he would be using. Ringen replied that he has not yet chosen the door. He said he would like to use a panel door that would be appropriate for the design of the house and the garage. McCafferty said the guidelines call for the garage door to be very simple in design. Smothers asked Ringen if he would consider retrofitting the old garage. Ringen said there are two issues with the current garage. First, he said that the garage is in such bad condition that it is probably not worth saving. Also, Ringen said that the current garage is not large enough for a modern car. Smothers said it is one of the last remaining original garages in the neighborhood. Ringen said he believed there are four original garages in the neighborhood, all of them in a similar state of disrepair. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 13, 2004 Page 2 McCafferty asked Ringen if, should Friends of Historic Preservation find someone who would want to take or salvage the garage, he would be willing to cooperate with that. He said he would not have a problem with that as long as it did not interfere with his time schedule. McCafferty said she did not want to see all of these garages disappear. She said if the gazebo was not located where it is, she would have recommended building the new garage next to the existing one. MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the existing garage at 1223 Seymour Street and construction of a new two-car garage at this address, provided the garage door complies with the Guidelines for New Construction. Ponto seconded the motion. Smothers said she believes there are other options to explore. She said she understood the desire for a two-car garage here but felt that the present garage could be reused for another purpose and/or could be added on to for the purpose of housing vehicles. Smothers asked if the gazebo was built on concrete, and Ringen confirmed this. Ringen said he did explore the possibility of enlarging the garage and was told by contractors that it was not an option. He said he was told that the garage could be preserved but could not be enlarged. Ringen said the garage is actually four feet into the right-of-way. Sueppel asked Ringen if he would be moving the new garage back. Ringen said it would be moved back closer to ten feet. Maharry asked, should the applicant not be granted the special exception, if the garage would be feasible with the current plan. McCafferty stated that the applicant has to go through the Board of Adjustment for a special exception and, based on other special exceptions, should be able to get that done. McCallum said he could support the plan as proposed. Weitzel said he would probably vote in favor, but he did have reservations about granting what is usually discouraged, especially with the door being a single door and with the demolition of a historic structure. Weitzel said he did understand that there is a need for this in this case. However, he said he did not want to get into a situation where every certificate of appropriateness becomes a special case. He said if everything has to be evaluated that way, then special cases will eventually water down the guidelines. McCafferty said the Commission could establish more guidelines and some criteria for this type of decision. Weitzel said he understood the need for this. He said he assumed the contractor knew what he was talking about, but the contractor's interests are not necessarily those of historic preservation. Smothers said she worked on a garage in Freeport, Maine in which the garage was raised and righted, and the roof was fixed. She said that anything can be done; it is always a matter of time, money, and what the owner wants. Ringen said he would not say that rehabilitation of the garage could not be done, but the contractors have said they would not do it. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1~ with Smothers voting no. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 13, 2004 Page 3 717 Clark Street. McCafferty stated that this is an application for an addition to a non-historic structure in the Clark Street Conservation District. She said the house was built in 1950, and it has some colonial revival characteristics. McCafferty said the applicant proposes to add a four- season sun porch to the back of the house. McCafferty said there are three criteria to be satisfied to determine whether the addition could be issued a certificate of appropriateness: 1) it does not further detract from the historic character of the district, 2) it does not create a false historic character, and 3) it is compatible with the style and character of the nonhistoric property. She said she feels the addition meets the criteria and therefore recommends approval. McCafferty said the addition will be slightly visible from the street. Sueppel said the windows in the back seem much smaller than the other windows. Littin said the windows would be consistent with the windows on the rest of the house. Smothers asked about the railing. Littin replied that the existing railing is not in good shape, and he plans to replace it with wood to match the railing proposed for the addition. Smothers asked Littin to comment on the door and the choice of brick veneer around the skirting. Littin replied that the top of foundation on the house is below grade. He intends to add the brick to protect the foundation of the house. Smothers asked if the neighbors had any problem with this, as it comes close to the property line. Littin said the neighbors are fine with this. Ponto asked about the decision to have the sun porch extend past the house. Littin replied that is for protection of that corner, where he has had a lot of water infiltration into the basement. Ponto said he would like to see the porch set in, with the entire thing moved north a little bit. McCallum said he agreed with those comments and asked about having the door on the side instead of on the north side or the other side. He said he would have less concern with the door if the whole thing was set back. McCafferty said that since this is a non-historic structure, the Commission has to look at it relative to the criteria. Gunn said the Commission allows extension to the side, front, and behind in all directions for historic properties. He said there are no guidelines that say this cannot extend beyond the side, although it generally looks better set back. Gunn said everything the Commission does encourages a setback, but nothing requires it or even close to it. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a sun room to the west side of 717 Clark Street, as proposed by the applicant. Sueppel seconded the motion. Maharry said he was in agreement that this meets the three criteria. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Weitzel said he was not certain that the extension of the addition in the back would meet the three criteria. McCafferty said the Commission had determined, however, that it wanted to provide a lot of flexibility; part of that decision came via concerns from the City Council. Maharry agreed that he should be able to sign off on non-historic things if they meet the three criteria. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 13, 2004 Page 4 Gunn said the Commission did not have a basis for denial of the addition. He agreed that it could be better, but the Commission cannot always insure that it gets the best possible design. Englert Theatre Marquee. McCafferty said this is a request for a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment. She said the Englert Theatre wants to restore its marquee to make it a running light sign again. McCafferty said the Code disallows animated signs except for artistic purposes, and specifically, if it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and if it is significant to the building. McCafferty said the National Register nomination discusses the significance of the marquee so she feel that the marquee itself is historically significant to a National Register building. MOTION: Weitzel moved, given that the marquee is addressed specifically in the National Register nomination and its context is specified to the building and that restoring the sign will restore that element, that this is an appropriate request and the Commission recommends approval to the Board of Adjustment. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. MINUTES: APRIL 22: MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of the April 22, 2004 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, as written. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Northside Historic Districts. McCafferty stated that Marlys Svendsen made a presentation about the Northside Historic District at the presentation of awards. McCafferty said the Commission will need to have one official meeting for which notice is sent out to property owners and the Commission has its official vote. She asked Commission members how they would like to proceed with any local designation now that the district will be going on the National Register. Maharry said he would prefer to have that discussion once the district on the National Register, because that designation could take until October. Gunn pointed out that there is really no connection between the local and NRHP designations. He said the borders don't have to be the same, and the timing doesn't have to be the same; there is no inner connection. McCafferty said the State recommends that the districts are the same, but that does not mean that things could be different. Maharry said he is of the opinion that the Commission should not go forward with a local district until a declared NRHP district is in place. He said did not want the Commission to give any appearance that they are trying to designate a district without sufficient notification and input from the public. Smothers said the documentation and the generalizations that have been made should not be a great mystery. She said the Commission should publicize where things are going and in what order they are being done. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 13, 2004 Page 5 Smother, Weitzel and Maharry expressed concern regarding notifying property owners about the process and timing.. McCafferty said the process of designation is described in a flow chart in the handbook. She said that most of the information is out there if people are interested. McCafferty said this shows the importance of education, as the Commission looks for continuing support for these districts. She said the Commission's original focus was on education, but the focus has now switched to more of an administrative role, while Friends of Historic Preservation has taken on more of a development role. McCafferty said the whole segment of the preservation process via education and information is now ignored, and someone needs to take over that role. McCafferty said everyone in the potential Northside District received a letter from the State about the nomination. She said they also received a letter from the City and was notified via the Northside Neighborhood newsletter. Gunn said the City also has locally designated conservation districts that have nothing to do with the National Register. Goosetown Conservation District. Maharry said the neighborhood meeting was held, and over 30 people were in attendance. He said that by and large there was support for preservation, and owners were behind the idea of fixing up the houses. Maharry said there was some concern by property owners that they would not support this because they feel that preservation is expensive and there is no funding to assist them. Maharry said that before anything is done to pursue a district in Goosetown, the neighbors need to be educated that it does not necessarily cost more to comply with the guidelines. He said the Commission will need the facts and figures to back up that claim. Maharry said Svendsen had an excellent idea by encouraging neighbors to help each other do neighborhood do-it-yourself projects. He said she also suggested having a tool library so that owners can check out tools as opposed to buying and renting. Maharry said the Commission needs to provide real, tangible incentives to get community support, and/or it needs to talk with the leadership of the Goosetown Neighborhood Association to help them organized and provide those opportunities within the neighborhood. He said the Commission should also talk to Friends about bringing back its grant program. Maharry said he was initially discouraged but realized that there was neighborhood support, although people did not want to spend the money to do rehabilitation. Gunn said a property comes before the Historic Preservation Commission for certificate approval only about once every 17 years. He pointed out that the average house in the City turns over every five years so that there could be three owners before anyone ever comes before the Commission. Weitzel asked if there were serious contention about this potential district, and if a lot of people will come to the meetings and speak against it. Maharry said that if incentives are not provided, the owners will not support a district. Sueppel suggested that when the neighbors are approached, the Commission give them information about the resources it can provide and tell them who can fix up their houses and do it without spending a fortune. He said the Commission can let them know that it will help restore Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 13, 2004 Page 6 their homes and do it the right way and give them the information. He said as a rule of thumb, it costs three times as much to install siding than to paint the exterior. McCafferty suggested finding a sample house to determine how much it would cost to paint versus siding it. She said the Commission can get data from estimates to compare costs to do things in a historically appropriate way. Gunn said that as long as the Commission doesn't force the district through and gives the owners time to react, listen, think, and respond, then he thought it would pass. Maharry said he would like to respond to the Goosetown owners with concrete facts when the next neighborhood meeting is held. McCafferty said she and Maharry could compile a list of owners' concerns so that the Commission can respond with good information. McCafferty suggested sending out a comment sheet to property owners who have gone through the process to get information to present to homeowners in potential new districts. Gunn said he really does not think the Commission forces people to spend a lot of money. Maharry said the Commission needs to have something to prove that. Gunn said that opposition to a district tends to go away as things go along. He said his sense is that as more things are done, momentum tends to carry the nomination along. Certificate of No Material Effect for 1027 Court Street. McCafferty said she would provide information regarding this application in the next packet. OTHER: McCafferty said she that a developer is interested in purchasing the McCollister Homestead and has plans to sell half of it and develop the other portion. She said it is important that any development be done with sensitivity to the site, and, at this point, the developer seems willing to do that. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte data on dtynUpcdlminutes/p&TJ2OO41hpc05-13-04.doc Historic Preservation Commission CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org CERTIFICATE OF NO HATERIAL EFFECT 1027 Court Street On April 29, 2004, the Chair of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission and the Preservation Planner conducted a review and approved a Certificate of No Material Effect for 1027 Court Street, which is a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. This certificate allows the replacement of the existing historic windows with Pella replacement windows. The muntin bar pattern must match the muntin bars of the existing windows. Muntin bars must simulated true divided-lights. The Commission Chair and Preservation Planner finds that the proposed alterations will have no material effect on the exterior appearance of the property, and will not compromise the historic integrity of the structure. The proposed alterations, as presented on the plans submitted by the applicant, are approved as provided in City Code Section 14-4C-7 Sh~ey M~Cafferty,' Pre~-~'~i;r('Planner Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic distric~ or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due byWednesday the week prior to the meeting. For Stc~ff'Use: ~/~ L rq Ce~ifica~e of Appropriateness ~ajor review Intermediate review Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) A Dale and Betty Dye r-I vwner .......................................................................................... Phone ............ .3.,.5..~.,7., .3.,0., .0.~ ........................................................... A-- 1027 East Court Street ooress .......................................................................................... ........................ ........................... email .............. .b,.,e,.~,~ ~,,~ ,d..~,..e, ,~, ~,,~.o..w..,~,. :., .e.~,q. ........................... :1 Contractor ................................................................................. Address .......................................................................................... Phone ............................................................................................. email ............................................................................................... rq Consultant ................................................................................. Address .......................................................................................... Phone ............................................................................................. email ............................................................................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: [] Site plan [] Floor plans I-I Building elevations r-I Photographs Product information [] Other ............................................................................ If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed proiect is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property ............................................................................ 1027 East Court Street residence Use of property .................................................................................... Date constructed (if known) ........... .]:..~.[...7. ....................................... Historic Designation [] This property is a local historic landmark OR [] This property is located in the: [] Brown Street Historic District [] College Green Historic District [] East College Street Historic District ~[~ Longfellow Historic District [] Summit Street Historic District [] Woodlawn Historic District [] Clark Street Conservation District [] College Hill Conservation District [] Dearborn Street Conservation District [] Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing [] Noncontributing [] Nonhistoric Project Type Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) I-I Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) [] Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) [] Construction of new building [] Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance [] Other Project description window replacements (using same product as was approved and used for 1316 Center Avenue) Mutin pattern will remain the same Materials to be used wood interior .................................................................. .P..!Ln.. ~t.?...a......a.!~.m...i.~..u..m....~x..t..~..r..,i...°..r. Exterior appearance changes By removing the existing combination windows, the exterior appearance will be enhanced. The existing siding is aluminum and will remain, Location and Functional Information 1. Historic Name(s) IOWA SITE INVENTORY Survey ID Number 5P-O1 ~-T,126 Database ID Number Nonextant 2. Common Name(s) 3. Street Address 1027 Court 4. City Ic~qa City 6. Subdivision 9. Legal Description: 10. Historic Function(s) 11. Current Function(s) 12. Owner Address (If Rural) Single dwelling Vicimty [ ] 5, County Johnson 7. Block(s) 8. Lot(s) Township Range Section Quarter of Quarter 79 65 14 of NW O1A Single dwelling O1A Dale L. & Betty L. Dye 1027 Court Phone # City/StateIowa City, Iowa ZIP 52240 LONGFELLOW SURVEY AREA (Sketch Map) E. CO U~qt __.(Integrity Notes) Roll/Frame 9 / 7 Photographer View Lookinq SSE Location 9f~Negatives: S. H. S. I. S~ul~s Pella Windows and Doors - Pella Products Page 1 of 1 Double-Hung Windows ~.on?e, · _Pe~o.F~ro~u~B > ~{~3~.QW$ > Dpuble-J-~/Qg > Precision Fit Precision Fir® Replacement Windows Precision Fit~ Replacement Windows slide easily into the existing "window pocket" without damaging surrounding trim, wallpaper, paint or plaster. Professional installation usually takes less than one hour per window. The fully-assembled, factory-tested window slides easily--and quickly--into existing sash "pocket". Windows are "made-to-order~ in 1/4" increments to fit the existing opening. 0 Architect Serles® Unsurpassed Architectural Expression. Recreates the charm of true divided light while adding a new dimension of energy efficiency and performance. Features elegant, distinctive profiles and virtually endless design options. ........ STEP. BY. STEP 0 Designer Series~ Innovations Other Can't Touch. Features blinds and grilles tucked away neatly between panes of glass, away from dust, damage and little hands. 1. Remove old double-hung sash. saving interior sash stops. With banding in place, temporarily set unit in opening to check fit. 2. Apply sealant to old window frame. Install new window into opening. 3. Square and plumb window; shim as needed. Secure with 4. Make final adjustments and reinstall intedor sash stops. Finish interior as desired. your local Pella salee specialist or download the installation ©2002 PeJla Corporation. All Riahts Reserved. http://www~pe~~a~c~m/pr~ducts/wind~ws-pa~~d~~rs~Typ~~asp?path=/~r~ducts/wind~ws~d~ub~ehung/prec.~. 4/19/2004 Pella Windows and Doors - Pella Products Page 1 of 2 Double-Hung Windows Home > Pellg P[Od. LLGL5 > Windows > pguble-Huno > precision Fit > Architect ZOOM Find o ~ueSt uteratu~ Wormn~ Ifl~orm~io~ Precision Fit* Architect Sedes* Architect Series® Precision Fit~ Windows feature the patented technology that recreates the charm of true divided light, yet adds a new dimension of energy efficiency & performance. Muntin bars (grilles) are permanently bonded to the interior and exterior surfaces of insulating glass. Choose from three standard muntin bar (grille) patterns--Prairie style, 9-lite Prairie Style and Traditional Style. Custom muntin patterns also available. Every Precision Fit® window is factory-assembled and factory-tested for air infiltration--no questions about performance. Benefits Windows are "made-to-order" in 1/4" increments to fit your existing window opening. . Energy-Efficient Insulating Glass--double-pane glazing options provide superior performance in hot & cold climates. Choose from either argon-filled, Low-E insulating glass or standard insulating glass. Tilt-to*Clean Sash--both sash tilt so interior and exterior glass can be easily cleaned from inside your home. , Wood Interior--natural wood interior may be painted or stained to match d~cor. Hassle-FreeTM Aluminum Exterior--tough aluminum exterior features a seven-step, baked-on finish. Hardware---cam-action locks are designed to increase leverage as the window is closed to assure a superior, weather-tight seal. Locks are recessed into the wood for improved functionality and appearance. Champagne finish is standard. White or Brass finish is optional. , Insect Screens--purchase price includes black fiberglass half-size insect screen. Easily installed--and removed--from interior of home. Options Exterior colors--Hassle-FreeTM aluminum cladding available in three standard colors: White, Tan or Brown , Removable Wood Interior Muntins (grilles) · Charcoal jambliner Grilles Available Patterns: Bar Style Options: ................... HJGHLJ,gHT5 ..... [p_t.e~l Light Techo.oJ~g~ Tilt-In Cloanin_g http://www.pe~~a.c~m/pr~ducts/wind~ws-pati~d~~rs/Detai~.asp?~ath=/pr~ducts/wind~ws/d~ub~ehung/pre... 4/19/2004 Pella Windows and Doors - Pella Products ~0 ~-.~,4 ~ I~UIL i~ ~ R/AE~HITE CT OUR ~OM PA. NY Page 1 of 1 Casement Windows ~p._m.~ > F}_eJlaJ~r~,.~tlt~s > Windo_w~ > C~t~__m~gt > ProLine ProUnee Basic done beautifully--our most affordable windows are available in a wide variety of standard sizes and three stendard exterior colors. By keeping our PreLine~ offering simple we maximize your value. Pella factory-tests every standard venting ProLine(D window for air infiltration--if it doesn't pass, it doesn't ship. Benefits Hardware oxclusive integrated crank with fold-away handle won't inter[ere with window treatments. Stainless steel operating hardware resists rust & corrosion. Finish options: Champagne finish is standard. White or Brass finish is optional. Sash Lock--patented SureLock® system reaches out to lift and pull the sash tight against the weatherstripping to form a tight seal. Patented Unison Lock System secures both upper and lower locks with a single easy-to-reach handle. Easy Cleaning--sash moves toward the center of the frame a full 4", which is wider than most competitors' standard casements-- making it a breeze to clean exterior glass from inside your home. · Wood Interior--natural wood interior may be painted or stained to match d6cor. . Hassle-FreeTM Aluminum Exterior--tough aluminum exterior features a seven-step, baked-on finish. , Glass--choose the double-pane protection of energy-saving, argon- filled Low-E insulating glass or standard insulating glass. Options Ext_erj~.c..g~[~[~--Hassle-FreeTM aluminum cladding available in White, Tan or Brown. . Muntins (grilles)--Removable Wood Interior Muntins with a real wood, beveled profile or permanently installed aluminum grilles-between-the-glass · Flat Insect Screen--rust-free fiberglass. Grilles Available Patterns: Bar Style Options: 02002 Pella Corporation. htt~://www~pe~~a~c~rn/pr~ducts~wind~ws-pati~d~~rs/Detai~.as~?path=~pr~ducts/wind~ws~c~~. 4/25/2004 Historic Preservation Commission CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa $2240-1826 (319) 356-$000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org CERTIFICATE OF NO MATERIAL EFFECT 529 Brown Street On May 13, 2004, the Chair of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission and the Preservation Planner conducted a review and approved a Certificate of No Material Effect for 529 Brown Street, which is a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. This certificate allows the replacement of an existing window, which is currently hidden behind siding, with a new wood window to match. The Commission Chair and Preservation Planner finds that the proposed alterations will have no material effect on the exterior appearance of the property, and will not compromise the historic integrity of the structure. The proposed alterations, as presented on the plans submitted by the applicant, are approved as provided in City Code Section 14-4C-7 Michael Maharry, Chair ~ I Iowa City Historic Preservation Comm~ion y rCcCafferty, P/c/s'e~;ation Planner Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting. For ~ff' Use: Date submitted ....... .~./.~..~.~....~... ........................ ~" Certificate of No Material Effect C~ Certificate of Appropriateness [] IVlajor review [] Intermediate review [] Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) [] Own e r ......~***~.**~...~ ......... .~.,~.. ~(~.........~..~ .'~.. ~....~. Phone ......... ~.....~...../......=.:.~.~...~... ........................................ Address ............ ~.....~:..~..?. ........ '..~.....~.~..~i..~.... ............................ email ................................................................................................. C~ Contractor ............... ~~ .......................................... Address ........................................................................................... Phone ............................................................................................... email ................................................................................................. [] Consultant ............ ~:: ........................................................... Address ........................................................................................... Phone ............................................................................................... email ................................................................................................. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: [] Site plan Floor plans [] Building elevations [] Photographs [] Product information [] Other .............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently describe the scope of the project~ Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of prope ty ....................... : ...................................................... Use of property .................. ...~.....'.......~./.~...~:.':'. ........................ Date constructed (if known) ................. /....~.... ,~..~ ........................... Historic Designation r-I This property is a local historic landmark OR This property is located in the: ! '"~: Brown Street Historic District ,-r-i College Green Historic District CI East College Street Historic District [] Longfellow Historic District [] Summit Street Historic District g Woodlawn Historic District C] Clark Street Conservation District [] College Hill Conservation District [] Dearborn Street Conservation District I~ Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ~ Contributing CI Noncontributing [] Nonhistoric Project Type [] Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) CI Construction of new building j~Repair or restoration of an existing structure that wilt not change its appearance [] Other Project description ...................... L.~....~.~ ........... ~...<..~..~.~ ......... ~..£~ ......... ~........~~.~....'..........~.....4..~/.....,~.,~r~' Materials to be used ................. ...:...D~ ........... ~.r..~ ............ ~<....X..~.~~ ....................................................................................................... ............................................... l.....c.z..:~ ........... / .............. .~.~.:...-..:~./.: ......... ~~ ...................................................................................... .............................. ~::: .......... ~ ..,~.....~..~'~. ................ ~..~....~ ................. ~ ........... ~ ..................................................... Exterior appearance changes ..................... £~.e~..~ .............. :~ ............. ~.~ ............ ~../..~ .__________________~.....~.~: ........................................................ : ................................. Iowa Site Inventory "-"~.Location and Functional Information 1. Historical Names: Bohumil Shimek House 3. Street Address: 529 East Brown Street 4. City: Iowa City Vicinity [ ] 6. Subdivision: OT 7. Block(s): 33 2. Common Name(s): 5. County: Johnson 8. Lot(s): N 1/2 Lot 1 Survey ID Number Database ID Number Nonextant 10. Historical Function(s): Description Single Dwelling Code O1A 1 I. Current Function(s): Multiple Dwelling 0lB 12. Owner: Steven J. van der Woude Address: 730 North Van Buren Street BLIP: Cty. Resource [ ] Phone #: (319) 354-0953 City/State: Iowa City, Iowa DOE [ ] R&C [ I HABS [ ] Photo [ ] ~OWN STREET 14 tt II-I HII I I HIIIH HIII 4 Ill H4 Ilfl RONALDSzz ~ z ~zSTREET ~ g I Il I I k-411 I--IMII Ill.ri I J MO-4 I 1911 I I IDI IIII I I (Integrity Notes) In excellent condition & well maintained. NR [ 1 Tax Act [ ] Grants (Sketch Map)