HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2006 Historic Preservation Commission
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, January 19,2006
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
PCD Conference Room (2nd floor)
6:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
3. Items of Consideration
A. Certificate of Appropriateness:
1. 315 Brown Street
2. 1201 Seymour Avenue
B. Minutes for November 10, 2005
4. Other
A. First session with Svendsen Tyler, Inc. (consultant) for the upcoming Iowa City
Historic Preservation Plan Update
B. Annual Goal Setting/Work Plan for year 2006
C. Discussion of Section 4.11: Gutters and Downspouts of the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Handbook
5. Adjourn
Application for Historic R6"\liew
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. Guidelines for the Historic Review process. explanation of
the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at
www.icgov.org/HPhandbook.
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 in the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior
to the meeting.
For Staff Use:
Date submitted ......~J/.~/.Q..~.............
I:J Certificate of No Material Effect
~'Certificate of Appropriateness
~Major review
I:J Intermediate review
I:J Minor review
Applicant Information
(Please check primary contact person)
~ Owner .......R.~.~.~(t.......~.l?!.:.~~.u......i...8.1t~~.f{
Pho~e";:'~*{;o.9.l11i4~~"v.~.~!~.},.....................::
AcYctress .................. ................................3.1.s:..........8.1./[WJ(.l ~I-
........................................................1.[)t.!/8;....(L~..l'..!A....
email.~.SP.~.~.U.ill~..............................................c;2:.?::Y::.5:
(0 ~ ()- ~ COYVlR/( @ V iqvJa ..if;/.. v...
I:J Contractor .................................................................................
Address ..............G:y..J1:.1Y!-.........c.~~:b::~.~h."E!:J......
.............P.o...!.......B..p.f.:......i?:.~.7..?=.....I......!.f:w0....((..h:,
Phone ......... .35.:':1:..::: ;)..3.1.'1........................... .....~.~ ..."!.. -?!!.: <{.
email...............................................................................................
I:J Consultant ............(?.~..;lli......K~.f>.:.~.....................
Add ress .........lJ.5.:.......l::!.......1Q.~.~}..U~.........................
Phone ............~.),.f{,.......1..1.J.".........................................
email...............................................................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
ar Site plan
Gr Floor plans
Cil/ Building elevations
(3"'. Photographs
1:1 Product information
1:1 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 eleva.tions 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 .......3.L5.':...........i3.CQ..W..r.!....,Stx:.e.e.. I-
..................................................f..~..,(..i..1:v.;y..............................
Use of property ....:.........s.~.u~Le.....k.m.!~~...~..'Pb~~% "-
Date constructed (If known) .............n..l.~..L.:.J....................
Historic Designation
I:J This property is a local historic landmark
OR
IJI/ This property is located in the:
~Brown Street Historic District
I:J College Green Historic District
I:J East College Street Historic District
I:J Longfellow Historic District
I:J Summit Street Historic District
1:1 Woodlawn Historic District
I:J Clark Street Conservation District
I:J College Hill Conservation District
I:J Dearborn Street Conservation District
I:J Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
I:J Contributing
I:J Noncontributing
I:J Nonhistoric
Project Type
w/'Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window
replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new
decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar)
Iia"/ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps)
IM'/ Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch,
chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar)
I:J Construction of new building
1:1 Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
I:J Other
Project Description:
Interior Remodel of existing kitchen and 1 st and 2nd floor baths.
Addition of a mudroom within a portion of the existing footprint of the back porch.
Enhancement or finishing of the lower portion of 2nd floor sunroom (see attached photo).
Materials to be used:
Kitchen:
Windows - Pozzi DR wood-sash windows with wood trim to match existing, both
inside and outside. (RO. 297/8 x 41 3/16)
Bathrooms:
Windows - Pozzi DR wood-sash windows with trim to match existing, both inside
and outside. (RO. 25 7/8 x 41 3/16)
Mudroom:
Windows - Pozzi DR wood-sash pair of windows to match existing with trim to
match existing, both inside and outside. (RO. 62 % x 41 3/16)
Entry Door - reuse existing original back door at new location.
Storm Door - EZ change wood storm door.
Foundation - cement block to match existing block foundation.
Siding - cement board lap siding to match existing siding.
Exterior Appearance Changes:
Kitchen:
East wall kitchen windows will remain in their original location but be shortened
to accommodate kitchen counter height.
Bathrooms:
Window replaced with same size and location in first floor bath (S.E. corner).
Window replace with similar size and moved approximately 18" west of current
location to center above new toilet location in 2nd floor bath (S.W. corner).
Mudroom:
An 8'x 6' section of existing porch will be enclosed to create a mudroom.
Windows, foundation and siding will be added that match existing. The original
back door will be moved to the new entry location off of the porch.
2nd Floor Sunroom:
The sunroom will be stabilized both structurally and visually by the enclosure of
ofthe porch immediately below it. Additionally, the lower portion ofthe
sunroom will have its siding extended down closer to the roof line.
The footprint of this home will not be changed and no rooflines will be altered.
,
,
'j
\,
1 --.
'.
.,
l
:i
:)
\00
~
;)
he
.
.
.
..
,
hS
'~ '
~ ,.../,
t: .....
-f'7~f-
,( ~:. ~
i, ) ..L
""~ <.i
(~:.;
, -..,..
.. "."
~ I ~
....
[
(
~
~
[
.
. :
tor Ils\\ - 5-tr'Odt..
.sou. -\--~ l ba.~.J< 0-(-, ro~)
RwC \ i \"IC'S \ e.-..(:.\-
lA \1\ +0 \.A e.he d
--:;~
-~.-
re..p\~
vJ/ ,mew
t)~ w' !
r\ \'\'\.....\eo !
'~o \~A~_.
etl.!:A-\\~ (
,i
"
i
___p>f'
fill
LJ",'
, ,
dl
,,~__,,_,~_,_~--~;~~~~~~~ Floor
r~'~-c1
L'
rl~
I__~
n
L_J
[_.I
n
I
-~-.-. '- '- ..- th--,--,-'--I ..,.,."..-.-..--
',.' .~~:::---- .. El.~" ~ :
. r-'" ,_,-::,:c_=..~"_~=':=",,::~-,--__.. '"' -- ,',~~:~~~.=..,.=""",~",;:-;...".=;;-::::-:-:;:--....
~lcDvc:- -.\h-::, SEe.--\ \on ~..._-,.,J<'- ,~ieW--B\~e~t'oc-hcb~
~ o\s \$ -l).l'\"to(,.,lcl\ed "l +0 (Y\.O\--\-e-h U\S~Y:j
IL Ne-w r\ lA Ch"OCHY\ 0 n J _
r--'IEd ~\oai'" l)J\+h~i:\-~ '-
e )( \~ t\ \'':j po r C h ~ oai pr \ V\-\-
~..
~ \ \ i w\ VJ/
6\d\\"IY(
dc\U~ -\ 0
r-ct>-C- \ \ Y\ e
~\\""'~
&1~d
-- ~'ld.\ ~~
--to \"I"CA~\\
O(:!~\~I
New D~
w lv' dco\'v5
-tv \ y\\ \\\l!~
+0 M.1.. 4(!...~
e~ t6tr\~
t=)( l6+\ ~
~en'\e.v~
I?~ry
u,rr1eJ\- 5+rodc-
we~ C6,'de. o~, hou~,c:)
'\
~ro\ l\n~ reTY\O \f'\
l) n-\'OlJ\ ~~e,c\
OF-
,_U
~-
E '" \ tJ~\ V\j
I
I
I
I, .
L----.---________...,____.,__~,____.__~_
h'
~
(, ,;
l____J
l:=.J
Add I+IC (\
0.(- f>;lv.ckOOlli
01"\ \ 6+ *'\<:0....
by e.-,",C\05\1".~
4')(u' ~
ex, \~..\ \V;~ ~'(c.~
W I+h r;ew
kOl..\ f\ .1",+\0",
L^r-~u ,-\.
(,
~\n\~ \::)o.cJ( p'n~/h
o n' ~ \ r\~ \ ~\...Jl.AV"\c.,hc\n~ ~d,
ReU.6'€.- e)(~h~~ b~k
COor n\ ,~ \ocec4\oY\
C\5e'(\~ ~f\ee. "+0 fY\\'{ckrn.
to rn ~\ l - s+r-odw
E.o...~ (.6 Ide o~ hO\..tse)
01
I
01
.
'~h'_"_~__~ E '{..I
.
\ n~-,.~.qu. . . . ..
rei
I - -
v
l_~1
U
Rcp\C\~e KI-\che.V\ "')\\~5 -
v..;f s\--.o,-\u ones +0 a,C(!OU,.ll+
foe (talA.I'''\-V y..,\ea~" SCA~l::t- \oc.r;>,.~'ion
~ )j
c
6\b
OroWV"\
b"'t-: (}-l J -- L/I . . v- I I" rv I 1.,;./1
. 0 r o.f'\ Gnffln Construction
I TlJt.J' ~I 'W"
- l:iriffin Construction
P.O. Box 2972
. . I. j I I I I I I I I I I I -
I
\
\' \~ r r \ \ I [ r~
:f~.:"~'- \
: \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
',.lll FII 'Ill
~- ".~
'-: ,..t
Ii ,I.~r I " / I "
'\,
. ...........
~',. "
.... "
~i~,)>~...~':.~~ -,
.I!
~'.' "~"... I, I .
II'
1111/'/" i
'. ) ; , !
i 'i ,II
71 ' . ,
; i . ,(
I ' I
I I, ! Iii ~.
Ii . II
t ' ,
. }./I i.! I
i, 1/ ' / I
::11 ; 11/1i ~'
~~r.wt'.",jflb ''''' ';'fIr'
~?.
ii1;
10.
~
~
.~ ~~ ""
::.t::i
~'~t;
'.' .~
....'1'~~
~,4f ".
.~~~'~'!?-
()
~
:.';
~
!i'.,
....
...,
~
.'t!!
,,~.;. . '"Ii'
.~ iJ
.,l'
.'
;,.',"
~
I'
t
~
~i~,
i~
,l1r
Ii"
..
..".::'
~
~
a..f
" ~
'\.
_t;i:ti
Lv
,,'
to r Il~\ \ - 6-1- r-od e.-.
6ou.-th l bo..~k 0+ roU5e)
l-A-l+rzrntA-H V0/(fj)
"" .
I" ~ l< 16-t,\ V;:~
'''''~~e.v~
E?~r'Y
Rat' \ \~'S \e-~
l,AV\.+olA<::,hed
n
I'! r--ll
, , ,I il
h~~~, ~-- ,~:~+
UII ILJ
____,~j .Ji:,__j I
.........-_....___~..~_____._.__.,___,...-4
~"'-,~-"'-----~;~~~J~~~ ~Ioo r
\:
\ rnTB IH
IHI~I-
:LtLJI I
~
r~
r [I"
jL-J,
on
CJ ['-"-!
___ _J~
l '. -;i>;-..
\
~. ,.....,..~..,.-",--...,...."...-,._..'_." ~_..._.
.-----.-----...,.....--........-
\ ]~
4~~#:;~~~_~.___.. ''-,' 1;.;;...... ~'.:_.>' .
...~- "I'-~"<'> 1r-
""''''.....'''''.,,'''-'.--......-.. .. .......- - "............~'" ,,-.__...,~, ............_"',,.".
~ltqv~ -+h~ ~ee,.\\on -~-----.LNe\)j Bloe\( Founcb-ho\
0\6 \'5 - t,H'I+ow~ed 'I' . -+0 fno,4ch ex"h~
V Ne-W. \'\lA6.rooyy, o..:~_,.J
~~ {\OD\ +0 -he ~
\"'+0 .2vJ -Cloo, ?OfC~
('e!.\ \C;,\~
&00<<'0
E,'lcA\ \'(1
_-to V'\;t.\eV\
orl~ Iv",,1
NevJ ,D ~
W IIr\dOlY5
-tYI""\\~,~
to w\?',A,',J\
e'l- 16+\\~
c..o,,,eJ\ - s-\-rodc
\}Je~ L6\de 0+ ho{.A~;,C ')
k-MmnMi~
"
\
~M l,ne.s relY\o. \r\
I) n4'Ol^ ~~w\
".-+.-
- ___.__~___...,_u
Dc
_'hl
.\
\
~.--~ 'j
j
I
i
I
. I
,.--- -
c ~ \ 6\--' V\J
\ . .._.~
h
.
f...... ..... '.\')
L~._._
CJ
..'1: Ad\,h\..\or
i I on I 6-+ ..q\QI
I' \ -+0 ~ i \ \ \ 'n
\,A~O\~
II ~Un'COOM
.m'l 01'\ ~~
_....1. : ~\oor.
, \
r:",
_ i
f
I
!
l------.----.------------
~.\nt~ ~~. p'r~h
(j l" \ ~ \ r-.c.. \ 6'.Y\d: LA \(\eh~r\~ c:J,
Re\..{6 -e- ex ~h vt'\ b'\C._k
Coo r \ n f'eW \oeo:-\-\a v'\
C\:;;, e'^..\ ~n~ e 40 {"\\..{dfrn,
Staff Report
Janueary 19,2005
Historic Review for 315 Brown Street
District: Brown Street Historic District
Classification: Contributing
This is a second application from, Rob Cornell and Susana Strode, for the proposed project for their house at 315
Brown Street, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. In their previous application the
applicants had requested approval to remove two existing additions and to replace them with a new two-story addition
at the back of the house along with some alterations such as replacing windows in the kitchen. The applicants are now
proposing to alter the existing porch and enclose it partially to create a mud room measuring approximately 8 feet x 6
feet. Also included in the proposal are:
1) replacing two first floor windows On the east fac;ade with two windows of shorter height,
2) replacing the first floor bath room window On the south fac;ade and
3) re-Iocating the second floor bathroom window On the south fac;ade and installing a new window of similar
dimensions.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.7 Windows; and,
5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Additions
Staff Comments
The house was built in 1896 using Late Victorian architectural style and Queen Ann stylistic features. The back porch
appears to be a later but historic addition and has been altered many times. A second story addition was also
constructed at an unknown time. Both, the back-porch and the second story addition need repair and maintenance.
The applicant now intends construct a mud-room with the same width as that of the existing porch and bathroom
and 'fill-in' the gap between the second storey addition and the porch roof using similar features and materials as the
existing house. The exiting back-entry door is being reused for the proposed entry On the west fac;ade of the proposed
mud-room. A paired window of a size similar to that of the exiting bathroom window (on the south fac;ade) is
proposed for the mud-room. Another bathroom window, On the second floor, is proposed to be removed from its
original location and re-Iocated with a new window, while the two windows On the east fac;ade will be shortened to
accommodate the kitchen counter. The applicant intends to use wood windows for the replacement.
Proposed materials for the project
wood for windows, doors, and trim
fiber cement board siding, shingles and
concrete for the foundation
Although this proposal further alters the back-porch, in staffs view, the basic proftle of this already altered porch
remains intact and the changes can be reversed in future. Staff ftnds the application generally is consistent with the
guidelines with regard to use of material and intent and recommends approval.
The applicant has submitted an alternative proposal (included in the packet). This proposal creates a small addition On
the first floor measuring approximately 11 feet x 8 feet. The non-aligned east wall for this addition makes it
incongruent. Also the original porch proftle will be 'masked' and may not be as reversible as it is in above-mentioned
proposal.
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 by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting.
For Staff Use:
Date submitted ........................................................
I:J Certificate of No Material Effect
~ Certificate of Appropriateness
I:J Major review
I:J Intermediate review
I:J Minor review
Applicant Information
Property Information
(Please check primary contact person)
I:J Owner ...........~~.~.~~~.~~.g~P.:...................................
Phone ..............:?~J.:-.9..~~2...........................................................
Address ..........J.?:QJ..~~Y.mQm-.AY.~!!M~.................................
........................JQ~~.f~.D.'}..~..?~~iQ....................................
email .................................................................................................
Mitchell-Phi
I:J Contractor ..........................p.~................................................
Phone.............}.?J.::1Q.?.~............................................................
Address ..........J~J::Ktr.~QQ~Ay.~!!~~................................
........................JQ~~.g.~!Y.?!A..~.~.~:!9.....................................
email .................................................................................................
~ Consultant ..~h~~~y..M~~.g.[~Qy.........................................
Address ..........7.~~.s.:.s.Ymm-.it.S.!r.~.t.#.l?4..........................
........................JQ~!!.~i!YJA..?.7..f.1Q....................................
541-4047
Phone ...............................................................................................
. shellmac@att.net
emall .................................................................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
ail Site plan
I:J Floor plans
~ Building elevations
Qg Photographs
I:J Product information
I:J 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 sufficiendy
describe the scope of the project.
Provide a written description of the proposed project on the
Address of property ..!~9.L~.~~9~.............................................
Use of property ..........~.!~~~.Y..~~.~~#:~..........................
. 1930
Date constructed (If known) ..............................................................
Historic Designation
[J This property is a local historic landmark
OR
~ This property is located in the:
[J Brown Street Historic District
I:J College Green Historic District
I:J East College Street Historic District
iii Longfellow Historic District
I:J Summit Street Historic District
I:J Woodlawn Historic District
I:J Clark Street Conservation District
I:J College Hill Conservation District
I:J Dearborn Street Conservation District
I:J Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
~ Contributing
[J Noncontributing
[J Nonhistoric
Project Type
I:J Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window
replacement, skylights, window opening alterations. new
decks, porch reconstruction. baluster repair or similar)
[J Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps)
141 Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch,
chimneys. decorative trim, baluster or similar)
[J Construction of new building
[J Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
Project description
1:'m.~.~~.!h~.~!g.f.!!Y.9..~P.P.!!~2~.f.9.r..~~.P.tQ~N:..Th!:?~.P.P.!!2f.!:~2!ti:?!9..~lI@.~~~.9.~m2!!#.9.!J.Qf.!m.~~~g.2.U.~.:~~..
g~~.~~t~P.P.t9.Y.~.2.f.~.U.~~.~Q:'.9.~.g~~~:..Th~.~~~!!p'-g.g~~.g~:?!J2t!1m~!!Q!JJ9..~!?9.m~!~.m29.~!p.::~Y..............
y.~hi~!~.~~..QlI@..!2.!h~.m!rrQ~.~9.!h.~9.JQ~,g~~.9.9.2r..h~i8!?:~.n~!fu~!.2.f.~~.2:~~n~!.:~.y.~hi~!~.~m~y.~.p.!:l!~~.~tm.~~........
g~~:..A!.~m~.P.9.M!t!Q.!im~.fu~.g~~.~~J~ngfu~!!9.J!2m.~~P.U.f?.f.~~HQ.J.f..f.~!:..Th!~.p.9.rt~Qu.j~.~~.!P.}~J?!~~......
~Q~Y.~~J.~~.mQ~.:?~lg~~~.Qf!h!~.Y.!u.~~7jt~~.~~~~.~!!Y.9.!J.!h~.gr.9.P.!!~t~hi~~.~.~~Y.J!~Q.~.t9.nmg
<?f..fu~.~2Q9..~t!h~.J?~.Qf..fu~.g~,g~:.........................................................................................................................................................................
~.~.P~.!Q2n~.P!:'g.P.9.~~9.!Q.h~!p..~m~h.!h~..~~~.Qf..fu~.!J~~.g~g~:.A.P!9j.~!?~g~P.J~.~t!h~..~ntr.y.JQ.!!1~.~.~.~WL..
~.~.f.!:4g~.~.~s..!!1~J~.P.~~~.Qf.!h~J~m~t~?9~gg~~.~..Th~.!QQf.P.!t9.h~!9.!!~~.!h~.P.!!!?h.Qf.~~.m~..........
g~!~.2f..fu~.~?9~gh2.~:................................................................................................................................................................................................
Th~.~}!Q.~P.P.y9~.9.n.~J.~.~HQmJn~.f.Qr.!P.-~.f..~J?~Rf.g.m~~,g:..~t~~q~~.~!:Qy.~.f.q!.fu~.9.Q~~~m.Qf
~.~~#.Qn.!Q.!P.-~.bQ~:.]f.~~.~PP.U~UQ9-.t~.nQt~p.P!QX~.!P.-~.9~tm:~U~.g~~i,gn.f.q!.fu~.~Qig.Qn.~m.JY.\~l.Y.......
~~~:..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Materials to be used
Th~.!J~~.g~~.~m.~.~~~.~~.~!!P:9.~.~~.9.~~.Qtll.~.~!?!!t.~.~~.~i~g.!Q.~!9.h.!!1~.~.~~g,!!Q~:.......
The window and door trim eaves and rake will be detailed to match the house and constructed of wood. Wmdows will
.......................................................~..............................................................................................................................................................................................
~.~~!!m~!~.~~.~g.!h~.g~~.gQQ~.~JJ..~..~~~~!7.S.~~~.~.~~.9.QQ~:..Th~..~~!!:'~.f.~Nu.g!~~.~J.~.mf.!:~~h.....
1h~..Q.~~.~~&~~.~.~.~g.Q!!!h~.!!Q~!!!~tf.!:4g~!~.9.!J:.......................................................................................................................................
Exterior appearance changes
?E~.~~~~~.~~~.~!!.~.~~~~~~!.~~~~!.~~~:...!!~~~~~:..~~.~~~i~.~f.~~.~~~.~~~.!~.~!~~~~.!?..~p.p.~..........
~~.~~~.~~.~~~~.~~~.~~.~~~~~~~~~:.............................................................................................................................................
Exlg garage to
be removed
New conClllte
driveway
.-.-...,
I
I
I
I
I
~~~
Tl
---{
1
9
ill
9
en
...
5>
'"
i-
~
~
"..". ~:.. - ".,." . ".:'".
." ".-. " ,
.-.-. -.-.---.
I
I
I
I
I
I
..J
(J) ~~~?F PLAN
CB
c:
o
~
>
Q)
iIi
Kl
::?:
c:
o
~
Q)
iIi
-'=
"5
o
U)
c:
o
~
~
Q)
iIi
u:;
CO
W
U)
z
o
~
w
-'
w
w
(!)
~
<(
(!)
c:
o
~
>
Q)
iIi
€
o
z
w
::>
z
w
:;c
0:::
::>
o
:i: ~
it '"
U) ;;;
~ ~
~ 00
North side of house (front)
North side of existing garage (front)
Southwest side of existing garage (back)
Staff Report
January 19,2005
Historic Review for 1201 Seymour Avenue
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
Applicants, Bran and Brenn Eldeen, are requesting approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed
demolition and new construction at 1201 Seymour Avenue, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic
District. The applicants are proposing a new 2-car garage to replace an existing garage.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition
Staff Comments
The house was built in ca. 1930 with Late 19th/Early 20th Architecture with the influence of English Cottage/Tudor
stylistic features. A second story addition has been constructed at the back of the house at unknown time. Also, it
appears that the original siding for this cross-gabled cottage has been replaced.
As per the guidelines, a demolition proposal of an outbuilding is to be reviewed on case-by-case bases, considering the
condition, integrity and architectural significance of the structure. Although the garage does not have any significant
architectural or stylistic features it follows the 'minimal traditional style' employed for this modest cottage and is also a
clearly subordinate structure on the property. The garage does not appear to be in a condition that it is irreparable. On
the other hand, from the functional aspect, the existing structure appears to be in need of 'upgrade' to accommodate
vehicles;
The proposed garage footprint measures approximately 29 feet x 26 feet and is approximately 20 feet high at the
highest point. The applicants propose a hip roof and a projecting cross-gabied entry to minimize the visual effect of a
large garage to some extent. One of the recommendations in the guidelines for new constructions indicates that the
outbuildings should be subordinate to the primary structure. If the commission feels that the garage should be further
'subordinate in size to the house two alternatives or the combination could be examined, namely: 1) the footprint
could be reduced, and 2) a lower roof pitch could be used.
The applicants have proposed to use aluminum-clad windows, steel garage doors. The proposal also indicates that
materials and features to match with the existing house.
Staff finds that the proposal is generally consistent with the guidelines, and therefore recommends approval.
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2005
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
Preliminary
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael
Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Justin Pardekooper, Jan Weissmiller
Sunil Terdalkar
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Helen Burford, Jeff Clark, Christopher Drop, Beth Rapson
Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Certificates of Appropriateness:
229 South Johnson Street. Terdalkar stated that this is an application to seek approval for a demolition of
a garage on the property, which is a contributing structure in the College Green Historic District. He said
the garage would be replaced with parking spaces.
Clark, the applicant, said that his company has owned this property for six to seven years. He said that
there is rarely a car in the garage, if ever. Clark said the property is always congested with all the cars. He
said he would like to deal with that by putting two stalls behind there.
Clark said that the garage is a fire hazard right next to the house, as it has no sheet rock inside it and is
dry rotting in some areas. He said that it appears that at one point, the column was pulled out and bowed,
and the garage sits over into the columns and also has a little bit of a lean to it.
Clark said he would like to tear down the garage. He said that it raises a maintenance issue and does not
have much functionality for this rental house.
McCallum asked if there is a shared driveway on this property with another house. Clark confirmed this.
McCallum said he looked at this property, and the front of the property looks like a parking lot. He said his
impression was that the garage was in okay shape, but he thought that a larger good might be served by
reducing the number of cars in front. McCallum asked if the concrete in the front could be reduced if
spaces were provided in the back.
Clark said that was possible. He said that the concrete in front was not put in by his company and does
not count for parking. McCallum said he would like to see more green space there, if possible. Weitzel
said that the Commission can't do anything about the concrete in the front.
McCallum said the issue is whether the garage is worth saving or not. Clark said that demolition of the
garage would also allow for the possibility of the house on the right to have some parking in the rear as
well, because right now the garage blocks that opportunity. He said his diagram shows that with someone
pulling back in there, there could possibly be two cars on both sides. Clark said that when he drives by in
the morning, there are at least six cars sitting there.
Weitzel stated that two more spots in the back won't solve that issue. Clark said that it would help push
two cars on the one side back and allow the house on the right to have two stalls also, resulting in a net of
four stalls.
Carlson said that if cars are parked in the driveway, there is no access row from the street to the back of
the lot. Clark said the zoning ordinance reads that one car may be parked behind another. He said the
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 10, 2005
Page 2
idea would be to have two cars in behind there, and then one car behind it, and it meets the intent of what
the City wants.
Weitzel said that the parking is not an issue for the Commission, ultimately. He said the issue is the
condition of the building proposed to be torn down.
Carlson read from the guidelines, liThe Commission will consider the condition, integrity, and architectural
significance of the outbuilding." He said the Commission therefore has no guidelines for what exactly to
consider as a threshold for any of the three criteria. Weitzel said that precedence-wise, the Commission
has gone both ways.
Gunn said that he thinks this is a shabby, old garage. He said that it is not very important in the sense of
the architectural character of the neighborhood. Gunn said he did not see anything wrong with tearing
down the garage. He said the chance that it might improve the parking situation is probably good.
Gunn said the language came about when there was no way to stop demolition anywhere in the City. He
said the Commission drew a line with primary structures in historic or conservation districts, although non-
contributing structures did not concern the Commission that much. Gunn said the Commission has looked
at outbuildings on a case-by-case basis. He said that he does not think this garage is worth any battle.
MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certJficate for the demolition of a garage at 229 South
Johnson Street, as proposed, for the reasons previously stated. Gunn seconded the motion.
Ponto asked Clark if he has. considered moving the garage 90 degrees around to become one of the
parking stalls. Clark said the City requires a stall that is nine feet by 18 feet, and there is less than 20 feet
there. He said the garage would then have to be moved too close to the property line. Weitzel said it is
probably allowed where it is now, because it hasn't been moved. He said that once the foundation is
moved, it would have to comply with the current setback standards.
Carlson said that even though the garage is over 50 years old, because it was clearly built at least a
couple of decades after the house and therefore. does not fit in with the historic context of the house, he is
more willing to let this go than he might be with some other garages.
Gunn said that a period carriage house in the back would be a different story. Weitzel said that if it was a
small but well-matched garage, there also might be impetus to preserve it.
The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
821 South Seventh Avenue. Drop, the contractor for this project, said that the proposal is to put a six by
ten foot addition to the rear of the house. He said that it might possibly be an addition to an addition to the
original building.
Drop said the addition would come out to the west six feet, which would make the kitchen more
functional. He said that the current occupants have some handicaps, so he is trying to meet their needs
with the kitchen addition. Drop said he intends to add some lower-level work surfaces, which can't be
done in the existing kitchen because there is not much wall space.
Drop said that this would be visible from the street. He said he would like to bring the line straight down
the additional six feet and put in an additional window to break up that wall. Drop said there has to be
some distinction between the addition and the original house if the addition is viewable.
Weitzel said the Commission would normally ask for a setback on the side to distinguish the addition to
the house. He said, however, if this is an addition to an addition, the Commission may consider giving
more leeway. Carlson asked if the foundation is different under the rear wing.
Drop said that it is slightly different. He said that he looked at the Sanborn map, which shows the
screened porch with the house, and the measurements add up to not having the four-foot addition on the
back.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 10, 2005
Page 3
Drop said he talked to Terdalkar about a setback to distinguish the addition, but that would really disrupt
the functional interior layout. Weitzel agreed that a setback would make this a very small, narrow addition.
Ponto said that to set it in to make it smaller would be unreasonable. Weitzel agreed.
Carlson asked if the current rear wing would be affected at all. Drop said the new addition would just
project out. He said the foundation would be brought out and would match with the veneer brick. Drop
said he would put a wider window in the back, about six or eight inches wider.
Weitzel asked if there would be a band of trim to define the addition. Drop confirmed this. Terdalkar said
that there is no trim on the house, except for on the windows. He said, as there are no cornerboards on
the house now, if trim is used to define the addition, it would be rather unusual and difficult to decide on
the style of that trim. Terdalkar said that the Commission may want to consider and suggest a different
distinguishing feature such a foundation.
Drop asked if it should be 3Y2 inch by 5/4 to match the window trim. Weitzel said it should match the
window trim.
Carlson said the Commission has at times been willing to say that if the foundation looks different, that is
enough of a change to tell that one is different from another. Maharry said that the change in the style of it
just to have an artificial marker does not seem appropriate in this case. Carlson agreed, saying that there
are other exterior markers.
Terdalkar said the existing foundation is a rock-faced concrete block. He said that regular concrete block
would show the difference. Terdalkar pointed out that the application specifies the use of rock face, if
possible. Drop said that he would just use regular concrete block and said that would be fine with the
homeowners. Carlson agreed and said that would be permissible in this neighborhood. Weitzel said that
any kind of concrete block is allowable in a conservation district.
Gunn said that the elevation as drawn looks better than if the trim were not there. Carlson said he was not
certain that he would want the line as depicted, because it doesn't show the current addition but would
show a hypothetical earlier addition. He said that architecturally he thought it looked better as in the
drawing, but he would prefer to see the foundation material as a marker.
MOTION: Carlson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition to the rear of
821 South Seventh Avenue, with the specification that the new addition be distinguished from the
old by the use of plain, concrete block. Ponto seconded the motion.
Maharry asked if the window trim would match the existing. Drop responded that the window trim would
match. He said that he is looking for muntins with a 5/8 dimension to match the rest of the house. Drop
said the closest he has found to date is 7/8. Weitzel said he thought that would be acceptable as long as
it was a true divided light and six over six. Drop said he was looking at the applied muntins that cannot be
removed. Weitzel said those have been approved by the Commission before. Gunn pointed out that
divided lights can be created with muntin bars that are adhered to both sides of the glass, but not with
snap-in muntin bars.
AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Carlson amended the motion to allow the owners the option
of using rock-face concrete block, provided it is distinguishable from the older foundation. Ponto
seconded the amendment.
The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
528 East Colleae Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the College Green Historic
District. He said the application is for a change in the position and dimensions of the shed that was
previously approved.
Burford, the owner of the property, asked why she had to go through the application process again.
Terdalkar stated that this was a change from the previously approved application and the original porch,
and it does not fit in the no-materia I-effect criteria and the Commission review is required for such exterior
changes.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 10, 2005
Page 4
Weitzel said this proposal is very similar to what the original porch looked like, and the Commission
previously approved a smaller shed because the air conditioner was in the way. He said that the air
conditioner was moved, so the shed was back to the original proposal.
Terdalkar said the plan shows the previous shed location. Carlson said the shed is being lengthened from
the previously approved plan back to the original dimensions. Weitzel said the shed would still be a little
bit smaller than the initial proposal and has shifted a little bit to the east.
Burford said she wishes there were a way that a procedure like this could be streamlined. Weitzel stated
that this is a very large project that has been done on sort of a piecemeal basis rather than all at once and
designs revised so many times, so the Commission has had to review it every time changes are
proposed.
MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for changes to the shed
proposed for 528 East College Street. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of
7-0.
315 Brown Street. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District.
He said the application is for an addition to the back of the house, with the removal of the existing two
additions. Terdalkar stated that although the applicant originally proposed to use poured concrete with
plaster and paint over it for the foundation, has now indicated that they would be willing to use regular or
rock faced concrete block instead to match with existing foundation style.
Maharry said the issue is whether this is a historic porch. Terdalkar said that there were no records found
in the surveys about the porch or its construction date. He said the house was built in 1896, but the porch
appears to be a later addition as the foundation masonry appears to be weaker and the pattern of rock-
face block appears to be different on the foundation of the porch.
Maharry asked if the columns and window trim were recycled. Terdalkar said the applicant said there was
damage to the porch in the past, and some of the columns were replaced. Maharry asked if the columns
that are there are original, because they look pretty old. Terdalkar said he is not aware of that. Gunn said
it could be an addition fairly soon after the house was built. Maharry said that the storm doors are there,
so the addition couldn't be that much newer than the house. Weitzel said the construction of the porch
could easily be in the 1890s time period. Carlson agreed that the lower porch could have been built
during that era.
Weitzel said the porch is clearly more than 50 years old. Maharry said that if it is an addition, there is
evidence that it is historic and over 50 years old because of the capitol, the trim, the storm door, the
cellar, and the columns. He said it is important to determine, because there are guidelines for the
demolition of historic, character-defining structures in a historic district.
Terdalkar said the survey mentions that the house appears to bea mirror image of the plan for the
neighboring house. Terdalkar noted that there is some dissimilarity however, e.g. one house is a two-
story structure, but the other is one and one-half story. Weitzel said the back porch was probably added
later but is historic. Carlson said that would not be a mirror image house then.
Maharry asked if the owners were clear in the knowledge that the demolition of historic, character-
defining features is disallowed. Terdalkar said the owners want to create more room and had said that the
porch ne'eded more work than just regular maintenance.
Gunn stated that when he bought his house, there was a one and three-quarters squatty, square addition
on the back that was clearly an addition. He said he added to the addition's extension south, went up an
additional % of a story, and actually made it the tallest part. Gunn said his house is in the Summit Street
District. He said he brought his project before the Commission, which thought it was a wonderful addition,
and it won a first place award at that time. Gunn said he is happy with it, and it is in character with the
addition. He said that what the owners have proposed is more attractive and architecturally more in
keeping what is on the house now, even if is removing something historic. Brennan said he agreed but
said the guidelines prohibit demolition if the porch is architecturally significant.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 10, 2005
Page .5
Gunn said that architecturally significant does not necessarily refer to everything old. Weitzel said the
Commission has to decide on a case-by-case basis whether something is important to the house or not.
Gunn said that the sleeping porch is not important to the architectural character of the house.
Carlson said that the back porch could be original, and even if it is not original, it's built in the style of the
front porch. Weitzel said it is also pretty simple. Gunn said this is not about ripping out a front porch and
putting on a deck with a treated wood railing. Weitzel said the argument could be made that the back
entryway is actually fancier than the original house is. Ponto said if the Commission approves this, it
might want to recommend not having the back be overly ornate.
Gunn said that this is not a landmark or key structure. He said that over time the Commission has moved
from considering the architectural character of the neighborhood to preserving every property as if it were
a landmark. Gunn said it is getting in the way of some things. He said the owners are proposing a nice
modification to the back. Gunn stated that to disallow this because of an old stru~ture on the back is
looking for trouble, and the Commission will continue to find trouble if it defines architectural character so
narrowly as being anything old. He said the Commission needs to protect the character of historic
neighborhoods. Gunn said he could understand being finicky about a landmark or key structure, but this
is just one of thousands of properties.
Weitzel said one sees these porches elsewhere; this is not the oflly place left in town as an example of
this. He said that it has already been altered somewhat and thought he could probably vote in favor of
demolition. Weitzel said he could see the point that this is removing a historic feature, but, especially with
the odd sleeping porch, he was not certain that it is significant and important to retain on this house.
Maharry said the proposal would change the whole view of the back of the house by adding a giant gable
back there. Gunn asked where the guidelines state that historic features cannot be removed. Carlson
referred to 7.0. Weitzel said that demolition is disallowed if it is significant to the architectural character
and style of the building, which is up to the Commission to interpret. He stated that the term significant
makes. the Commission less tied down than it would otherwise.
Carlson said that removal of the front porch would be much more noticeable, but its significance is at a
much higher level than the back porch. He said he still thinks of the back porch as character defining and
part of an era. Maharry said he thinks it is character defining because of the storm cellar.
Ponto said the sleeping porch is not character defining at all, but the lower porch could be. Gunn said the
sleeping porch has probably been there more than 50 years. He said he thinks that one has to be able to
walk by it and think it belongs, and that's good enough for him.
MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate for the demolition of the rear, two-story porch
at 315 Brown Street. Ponto seconded the motion.
Gunn said that the middle paragraph under demolition states, "A certificate of appropriateness is also
required for removal of any portion of a building, such as a porch, porch balustrade, decorative brackets,
dormers, chimneys, or other architecturally significant components on any structure within a historic
district or on any landmark." He stated that the guidelines don't say this will be denied but just say that a
certificate is required, so they are to be discussed and presumably, in the language, sometimes they can
be approved.
Weitzel said there is leeway for non-significant items to be torn off, but the Commission needs to decide
what is significant. Ponto said that an addition on the back of any historic house will destroy something
historic. He said the issue is how much is destroyed.
Carlson said this is not just the back wall with a window or two, which is what the Commission often
considers. He said this application is to remove the entire back of the house plus the porch, and the
proposed design would not look anything remotely like that porch.
Maharry suggested the Commission look at this as an equation. He said the large sleeping. porch on the
second floor isn't historic and doesn't contribute significantly, and the same is true for one column and the
enclosed part of the porch, which probably doesn't add to the significance and character of the porch.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 10, 2005
Page 6
Maharry said that is balanced out with what will be lost, which is historic, which includes the second-story
window, which is probably less character defining, two original columns, and a storm cellar.
Gunn said that the pair of columns is probably more appropriate as drawn than the fancy brackets on the
back porch. Maharry said the Commission should articulate why the features are not significant.
***The tape quits here. Something must have happened during the recording. ***
Weitzel said he thought an equation addresses the issue well and is more objective than other methods.
Terdalkar said alterations carried out the over time are considered when the surveys determine
significance. Weitzel agreed that an architectural historian would see the alteration as detracting from the
building. He said that the porch is documented by photographs and archives.
Brennan asked if the neighboring property had a back porch, and Terdalkar said it originally did not.
Brennan asked if the neighboring property was a contributing structure, and Terdalkar confirmed that 311
Brown Street is a contributing structure.
Carlson said that he would probably vote against the demolition, because he likes the idea of a back
porch. Ponto said that the sleeping porch and the bathroom are not significant, contributing features,
because they are add-ons and inharmonious with the building and do not contribute to the overall flavor of
the house. He said that the part of the porch that is unscathed is a tougher call. Ponto said that where
add-ons are allowed, some historic component is lost. He said that because the sleeping porch and
bathroom are not significant, that loss is minimal, and losing the lower part of the porch with its two posts
is less than half of the entire expanse.
Gunn agreed and said he would vote in favor of the demolition. Enloe also agreed, based on the balance
of gain and loss. He said that the back porch is already spoiled, and the loss is more than balanced by
removing the inappropriate sleeping porch and the bathroom. Enloe said that the net effect is not
deleterious to the house. Carlson said that if this were just approval of removal of the sleeping porch, he
might be in favor.
Maharry stated that in the past, the Commission has considered the rehabilitation potential with respect to
a project. He said that removal of the addition to bring the house back to its original state was improbable
and not feasible, and it was especially unlikely that a bathroom would ever be removed. Maharry said that
the back part of the house was not likely to ever be restored, and he would support the demolition of the
back porch.
The motion carried on a vote of 7-1. with Carlson votina no.
Regarding the addition, Carlson said that he thought it was a fine design, except for the extra
ornamentation and the three square, short windows. Enloe said he also did not like the three short
windows on the west elevation. Weitzel said the owners would like a sunroom/family room with a large
window on the back wall, but he thought the three short windows were designed as such for privacy
reasons.
Terdalkar said the scale/proportions of these windows on the dining room match with the three windows
with ornate glass panes on the original west fac;ade. Weitzel said that the window appears larger in the
drawing and did not have the same trim. He said that the larger window is more like the size of the
existing window. Enloe said it would be appropriate to reuse the windows that are proposed to be
removed on the east elevation, instead of the three short windows.
Rapson, the contractor for this project, said the two windows on the east elevation are in bad condition
and need to be replaced. She said the proposed windows are positioned to accommodate the sink for the
proposed kitchen. She said they will be shorter windows for the same purpose. Weitzel said the
Commission has allowed for different sized windows for kitchen remodels, but that was usually at the
back of the house. Enloe said he would be less troubled if the windows were on the back.
Enloe asked Rapson the reason for having the three short windows on the other side. Rapson said that
they don't have to be that size, but they are very close to the neighboring home and one can look right
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 10,2005
Page 7
into the neighbors' house. She said it was not essential to have them be that size, and it is more
important to have the kitchen window height as proposed, to allow for the counter.
Weitzel agreed that most homeowners want more light for a modern kitchen. Rapson described the floor
plan for the kitchen. She said that in the existing kitchen, there is only counter space from the chimney to
the door and very little cupboard space. Weitzel said that to accommodate the modern design of the
kitchen, the contractor had to do it with windows. Rapson said it was a problem especially because there
are so many doors leading into the kitchen.
Enloe said he was okay with the window shape to accommodate the design but was less enamored of the
two windows together. Rapson said they would match the pair of windows on the front of the house, and
there is also a house at the corner of Brown and Johnson in a historic district for which the Commission
approved a pair of windows together. Weitzel asked if the style of that house was the same, and Rapson
said that it is a Dutch house with a gam brei roof.
Rapson said that the house has a pair of windows on the front elevation and also, on the house next door
there is a pair of windows facing together. Terdalkar said there is also a pair of windows on the second
floor gable and can be compared with the applicant's proposal as they are different in style.
McCallum said that if the windows are split, the kitchen will lose the upper cabinet. Rapson said she
would also like to see a window above the sink. Weitzel said that there is nice symmetry there now.
Rapson stated that the window would match the upper height. She said there is a pair of windows
together on the front and a single window above so that this pattern exists elsewhere on the house.
Carlson said (something about appropriate window before, but what's there... not new shape and typically
on the back... approve a lot of things if undoing.) Gunn said he did not like the three windows on the west
elevation. Rapson said that she could put a pair of long windows there.
Weitzel asked if the kitchen windows could be salvaged and used on the addition in the back. Rapson
said that the windows on the south elevation would be the same dimension as the long ones, and the
current windows are in bad shape. Weitzel asked if they are leaky and need reglazing or if they are rotten.
Rapson was uncertain but said that the owners of the neighboring house want to replace a window of the
same era and added that the current windows are not weather tight. Maharry said that if the windows are
moved to a new location, they could be made weather tight.
Weitzel said that the process of re-glazing, etc. could potentially be less than the cost of a new window.
Rapson said that the replacement windows would cost less than $300 per window. Weitzel said he would
like to save the windows and that they are not destroyed or removed entirely and possibly reused on the
house on the west side. He said that he understands the need for special height windows for the kitchen.
Rapson said that she has noticed the original trim inside. She said it would be frustrating to do new
construction that is weather tight but use old, leaky windows. Weitzel said that if the windows aren't
moved, they will have to be repaired.
Weitzel asked Rapson if the owners would be reusing the two columns on the back porch. Rapson
responded that if they are salvageable, she would reuse them. She added that the columns on the front
had been replaced, with Commission approval, and said that the columns in the back might be rotten at
the bottom.
Weitzel suggested replacing the brackets on the back with columns and extending the canopy to all of the
columns. Maharry said that would match the front. Rapson said they would need to construct a new
balustrade for the stairs. Weitzel said (something about new residential single-family homes require 36-
inch baluster spacing.
Carlson asked if there would be a contrast between the foundation on the current house and the
foundation on the addition. Rapson replied that the foundation on the current house is block made to look
like stone and the proposal is to have a concrete foundation. Weitzel said the guidelines recommend
using foundation to match the exiting in joint profile, texture and material. Terdalkar suggested that the
blocks from the current porch could be recycled, if properly dismantled. Rapson responded that the
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 10, 2005
Page 8
foundation is falling apart and is not on straight. Weitzel said that the blocks could still probably be
reused.
Maharry asked if the back door is original. Rapson replied that it is original but said that it is not in good
shape. She said that they would not be reusing that door but would be installing a new door with the
same format and a new storm door. Rapson said it is nicer and would be more historically appropriate
than what is on the front.
Maharry asked about the proposed five-paneled steel door. Rapson said that door would lead to the
basement. Maharry said that a two-paneled door would be preferable. Rapson said the owners want an
insulated, durable door there. She said she could only find with only the horizontal panels and her options
were very limited that or needs to choose a solid slab with glass. Rapson said she would continue to look
for a two-paneled door and said that would be her preference as well.
MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a rear
addition at 315 Brown Street, with the following exceptions to the proposal: 1) the west triple
windows should be replaced with a pair of double hung single windows, 2) columns similar to
those on the front be installed on the new porch, 3) the foundation be a masonry foundation, and
4) the basement door be of horizontal panels, if possible. McCallum seconded the motion.
Carlson said he did not like to see the windows on the east elevation of the original house go. He said he
would vote against this for the sake of registering his disapproval of the removal of the windows but said
he basically approves of this design.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-2. with Carlson and Enloe votina no.
Weitzel recommended that Rapson consider taking any reusable materials to the salvage barn.
OTHER:
Terdalkar stated that the City Council asked the Commission to reconsider Section 4.11 of the guidelines,
to accommodate the project at 517 Grant Street. Carlson said it was his impression that the City Council
didn't like the idea of a homeowner having to spend $3,000 versus a $600 repair. Weitzel said the City
Council was swayed by the owner's argument, although it was not necessarily germane to Section 4.11.
Maharry said he watched the meeting and felt that the City Council only heard one side of the discussion.
He said he would like to know specifically what the City Council wants to see changed.
McCallum stated that the language discrepancy between the Building Code and Section 4.11 needs to be
cleared up. He said that the Building Code states that if someone is re-roofing, he does not need a
building permit. McCallum said that the language needs to be more consistent. Brennan said that if the
Building Code does not require a permit, then the guidelines don't come into play.
Terdalkar said Section 4.11 pertains only to covering of the built-in gutters not re-roofing. If the gutters are
being covered so that the structural work is involved building permit is required. Maharry said that the
owner was changing the pitch of her roof with wood. He said that this is not re-roofing but is actually
building something. McCallum said it was probably time to review requirements for a regular permit.
Enloe said that the Commission has now reviewed Section 4.11, and the rules are clear. Weitzel said the
City Council review was off-topic from the appeal and involved discussion regarding whether the
Commission's decision was fair to the owner versus discussion about the ordinance. He said the owner
had a sheet metal contractor give her the $3,000 estimate. Weitzel said there are other options for this
roof, but the owner did not feel they would work.
Gunn agreed that there are other options. He pointed out that this project was already begun without
consultation with the guidelines and without the owner obtaining a permit. Gunn said if the owner had
followed the rules, then this would not be a problem.
Maharry suggested submitting a report to the City Council to emphasize the Commission's points. He
pointed out that the installation of the ATM on a historic building was also done without a permit.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 10, 2005
Page 9
McCallum said the language in the Building Code is not clear as to when a permit is required in a case
like this. Enloe said that in that event, there is need to clarify it Building Code not in the guidelines.
McCallum said that the Commission's review is accounted for in the Building Code regarding windows
and doors but not in this case.
Maharry stated that the City Council needs evidence that changing the slope alters the historic character
of the building. He added that Section 4.11 was not created in a vacuum and was done after
consideration of possible circumstances. Weitzel said that Section 4.11 does not specify a method that
must be used but rather allows options.
Enloe said that people won't look at the guidelines unless they realize they need a permit to alter the pitch
or slope of the roof. Brennan stated that the Commission voted this down, but the City Council wants to
know if the guidelines can be altered to allow some exceptions.
Maharry said that in every case, a homeowner could argue that there is some extraordinary circumstance
and the guidelines can not be changed every time such claim is made. Gunn said it is reasonable for the
City Council to ask the Commission to review something in the guidelines. He said applicants however
cannot avoid the review or the permit or by claiming that they were not aware of the requirements and the
guidelines. He suggested that the language regarding building permits can be modified if required. Gunn
said that the Commission needs to make the point that the architectural character of a building is altered if
the pitch of the roof is changed.
Maharry suggested the Commission recommend to the City Council that the Building Code language be
changed. He said the Commission should also provide evidence from other communities showing how
the change of a roof slope can affect the historic nature of the building.
Weitzel asked Carlson to draft a memo to the City Council to address the points discussed by the
Commission. Maharry said there should be some discussion of the costs in this case. Weitzel said that
products such as Acrymax and EPDM can be used on roofs without the high costs as quoted by the
contractor. Gunnasked if the $3,000 quote included the cost of undoing what had been done in error.
Weitzel said the details are unknown.
Gunn said the costs for doing something shouldn't have been so high if proper consultation and review
process was used in the first place. Maharry said that the owner would have a received a letter in
February 2005, not to mention all of the other notifications, to let her know that her house was in a historic
district.
Carlson said he could not address all of the owner's points in his memo to the City Council, because
there was not enough information. Maharry suggested sticking with the global themes, versus one
individual's claims. Brennan suggested including other options for the roofing in the memo.
Carlson pointed out that other solutions would be effective. Brennan said (something about ...discussions
with several people that... not look offensive.) He said that the key for her house is that it had a gambrel
roof. Brennan said that it already had a pitch change, so he thinks another small change might be okay.
Weitzel said the flat gutters are part of the design features on the house and also that they have
withstood the weather for over 80 years. Brennan said that the roof is now dysfunctional, as frequently
happens. Weitzel said that they all eventually become dysfunctional without proper maintenance.
Gunn said that if the Commission changes the guidelines to find an exception for this owner's house, it
would affect thousands of houses and porches with internal gutters, and they would become shed roofs.
He said that internal gutters are essential part of historic houses. Gunn said the Commission could not Jet
this go, because it would set a precedent for all architecturally significant features on the houses all over
the City.
Weitzel added that to alter the guidelines for one applicant would be the definition of arbitrary and
capricious. Maharry said that the wording could be changed to say, "not significantly altered," which would
give the Commission some discretion. Weitzel asked how many people would have changed their vote if
the word "significantly" was included in the guideline. Brennan said that he would have voted in favor, and
Ponto said he did not know if he would have or not.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 10, 2005
Page 10
Enloe said the reason for the guidelines, to some degree, is to be rigid. He said that if there were no
guidelines, the Commission would have a much more difficult job.
Weitzel asked if the guidelines in Section 4.11 were drafted only for porches. Gunn said they were not
intended for just porches. Enloe said it is essential to protect specific features on the historic houses,
especially if they are architectural and can not be reversed once altered.
Gunn said the guidelines were debated before they were approved. He said as external gutters can be
installed and removed if someone intends to do so, it was allowed. However this change can be
reversible only if the built-in gutters were covered without changing the roof pitch, or without removing the
built-in gutters. It was also discussed that this affects a lot of properties; therefore the option to install the
external gutters was introduced.
Weitzel said that people have told him that the Commission needs to define when something is
architecturally significant or not. Gunn said that there is a difference between architectural significance
and historical significance. He pointed out that there is not an architect on the Commission now, and
Weitzel said he would like to have an architect on the Commission.
Gunn said that he is concerned that such a change would allow covering of all the internal gutters without
much thought. Enloe said that it would allow restoration to the original state at some future time.
Carlson said he would e-mail the draft memo to Commission members for their review. Weitzel pointed
out that Commission members had the option of changing the guidelines at the present meeting if
someone moved and seconded a motion and there was a majority vote.
MINUTES: October 13, 2005.
Weitzel asked Commission members to submit any typographical corrections to Terdalkar.
Carlson stated that on page three, in the second full paragraph, the last sentence should be clarified.
Weitzel stated that on page four, in the first paragraph reviewing the minutes, the last sentence should
refer to "Carlson" and not "Weitzel."
MOTION: Enloe moved to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2005 Historic Preservation
Commission meeting, as amended. Maharry seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
OTHER:
Weitzel asked for discussion of the submitted RFPs. Carlson said that he thought the more expensive
proposals were better. He said he thought the Svendsen, Tyler, and Clarion proposal was best, and the
Gray Grace proposal was next. Carlson said the Spark proposal was very detailed, but he felt the
consultant might not have enough resources complete the task.
Weitzel said he thought the proposal by Svendsen was good and also mentioned that the document put
together by Clarion about Colorado was very well done. He asked if anyone disapproved of the Svendsen
Tyler and Clarion proposal. Weitzel suggested the Commission then go with the proposal presented by
them.
Brennan said he talked with the Attorney General's Office about the open meeting law and what
constitutes a meeting. He said the Attorney General's Office informed him that an instant messaging
session, even if only two people are corresponding, constitutes a meeting. Brennan said that the Attorney
General's Office stated that a series of e-mails is a murkier area but is probably okay. Brennan said that
the e-mails would be a matter of public record, however.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
s:!pcd/minuleslhpcl2005HPCminules/HPC 11-1 0-05.doc
=
c
.....
~
~
.....
S
S"Cl
C I.
U 8
=~
c
..... ~ II)
.....CJQ
~=Q
E:~M
~"Cl
~ =
~ ~
I......
~.....
CJ<
.....
I.
C
.....
~
.....
=
Q I
... ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: 0 ><: I 0 ><:
-
... I
... I
I"l I
... ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: 0 ><: 0 ><:
- I
Q I
...
M ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ~ 0 ><: I 0 ><:
C:! I
0- 0 I
~ ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: 0 ><: I ~ ><:
I
0- I 0
In ><: ><: ~ ><: ><: ><: 0 ><: I ~ ><:
~ I
I
In ><: ><: ~ ><: ><: ><: 0 ><: I ><: ><:
... I
00 0 I
"'" ~ ><: ~ ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: I ~ ><:
... I
~ I 0
Q 0 ~ ~ ><: I ><: ><: ><: I ><: ><:
~ I I
\Q 0 0 I I
~ ><: ><: ~ ~ I ><: 0 ><: I ><: ><:
I I
\Q 0 0 I I
C:! ><: ><: 0 ><: I ><: 0 ~ I ><: ><:
I I
\Q I 0 I
\Q ><: ~ 0 ><: I ><: 0 ~ I ~ ><:
Si I I
I 0 I 0
M ><: ><: 0 ><: I ><: 0 ><: I ~ ><:
... I I
- I I
In
go ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: 0 0 ><: I ~ ><:
S I
I 0
"'" ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ~ ><: I ~ ~
... I
~ I
Q I ><: 0 ><: ><: ><: 0 ><: ><: ~ ><:
... I
- I
I"l
In I ><: 0 ~ ><: ><: 0 ><: ><: ~ ><:
... I
- I 0
M
Q I ><: ><: ~ ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ~ ><:
... I
- I 0
M I
I"l I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ~ ~ ~
... I I
- I I 0 0
...
~ I I ><: ~ ><: ><: ~ ><: ~ ~ ~
I I
... I I 0
'" co I"- ~ I"- co \Q l"- I"- or> ~ co
e .~ s:: ~ ~ s:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0- 0- 0-
C:! C:! C:! C:! C:! C:! C:! C:! C:! C:! C:!
W M M M M M M M M M M M
...
E! ~ ...
to Q, f :!
I: I:: .E! <:)
<'II ... '; ] ~ 'E ,.
I: <:) I: <'II .c:l
I: '" ~ .c:l U ~ <:) .... '" ~
II) ~ i: <:) I: <'II ... 'C .... <:) '" ';3
~ ... <'II -= ::I ~ ~ ... I: E! ';3
eel ~ <'II <:) ~ ~
u ~ =- ll. ~
Z ~ =l ..; ::g ::g ::g ..; ..; -< ..; ~
'i:l
II) ....
CIl II)
= 01)..0
~ ,5 e
~~II)
~~5~~
~CIl15oo
~~<ZZ
" " " " "
~ E:8::E
~><:OOZ