The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-18-2006 Historic Preservation Commission IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Meeting Thursday, May 18, 2006 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street peD Conference Room 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: 815 E. Washington Street B. Discussion of 17 S. Governor Street Stonn Damage C. Minutes for May 4, 2006 and May 11, 2006 meeting 4. Other 5. Adjourn Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties 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.orgIHPhandbook. 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 Monday the week prior to the meeting. ~~t:t:~b~~ed .......(!~.tJ.F!.qf........... 'Cl .....cert.ificate of No Material Effect ~ Certificate of Appropriateness ~ Major review 'Cl Intermediate review ,Cl Minor review Applicant Information ,v'\ (Please check primary contact person) low IT Cl Owner ..~.....~......flt.J....~~ :::~:~'~":e;.l~:::~::~:\1J.A~ifi.~TPt.J:::::::::::: ...1.Nlt.....?l1Yt..J...l.t:............................................. email....................N:............0~....Zi)N............~ I Cl Contractor ,.........l~...............~.:..,~...:~.......?l~ Address ......41.~.......?fi.L...~............................ .............JcxM:.....9.7Y.,..tIl:..................................... Phone..................~~&.3Q:2-:2............................ ~.....................2.~:Q...:..~..l..~..,........................ Cl Consultant.. ............................ ..... .... .............. ... ......................... Address ....... ..... ......... ..... ............. ... .................... ....................... ..... Phone .......... .... ......... ....... ..... .............. ....... ... ............. ....... ............... email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Cl Site plan Cl Floor plans Cl Building elevations )( Photographs Cl Product information Cl 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 de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. :::::~:=:~;;:.[2.....r:.,.'d~?!:l.I.~~J .....JP.~.ft:......~...I.~.t....l...&......................................... Use of property.....~..Bt.?~l~r.~............................ Date constructed (if known) ............................................................... Historic Designation Cl This property is a local historic landmark OR Cl This property is located in the: Cl Brown Street Historic District Cl College Green Historic District Cl East College Street Historic District Cl Longfellow Historic District Cl Summit Street Historic District Cl Woodlawn Historic District ~Cl ~ark Street Conservation District ~ College Hill Conservation District Cl Dearborn Street Conservation District Cl Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Cl Contributing Cl Noncontributing CJ Nonhistoric Project Type CJ Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights. window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) CJ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) Cl Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) Cl Construction of new building CJ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance Cl Other.......................... ......... ..... ....,.... .............'........... .................... Project description C?......~~......??!~&:1...........1;?~.~.......~.!N.~.~.?...........W...rnd.................. ...~Y.NJI2..\j1{:..t2:>!,I.:%gtkiF=~.91.::!112.~~J~~ ........~....~7....~.................~................W..rr::::.................................................................................................... ....H..................................................................................................................................;......................................................................................................... ~..................................................................................................................................................................................:.:..."/....................-;).......... ~t....g~......2m/Y:j.........l2A!:::t~.........LA.E.2.1.7.>J~.4...........f.......................... ..........-::rR.I.I::1....\............................................................................................................................................................. ....................................... ...... ~..................................................................................................................................................................................~.............................................. "7......~............~..........1>.t.fB..!1rir:.(Z./2..........&r.:eB......~...1P....................... .................M.M.t;i/:,........Ii:!5!..~..~................................................................................................................................................... N"'.).:t5.~...K)..c:;.......'K~.A?~..............If.C;.........VfJ...ff7....~............................................................ j .. i::t::/.....~{..~.~........!.d~..........~...~.~D........................................,f..l.2..................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................'e................................................................................................................................................... Materials to be used ::::::"lfIJi1fiJJ)F{::::::~&:::::::::Vi.N..yC:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'.::::::::::::::::'.: .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Exterior appearance changes ::::::fJ..o.::::::::::::?lMiJi1~..;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................,........................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ppdadm/HP HandbooklApp.p65 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 4,2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Preliminary MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Kevin Burford, Jim Buxton, Jeff Clark, Consultant (for Jim Buxton), Shelley McCafferty CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Terdalkar said that although notification of this meeting was not posted on the website, it was posted on the bulletin board in City Hall, and notification was sent bye-mail to a list of 300 people and to members of the press. He said that notification requirements have been satisfied per Iowa Code Chapter 21. Terdalkar said that the circumstances qualify the meeting for emergency status. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Aoprooriateness: 113 South Johnson. Terdalkar said that this application is for the replacement of a standing seam metal roof, which was damaged in the recent tornadoes, with asphalt shingles. He stated that the building is a contributing structure in a historic district. Kevin Burford, the consultant for this project, said the proposal is to use asphalt with the weathered wood look for the roof. He said that the metal roof that was there was so steeply sloped that he could not get anyone to paint and repair it, although he had tried for a couple of years. Kevin Burford said the roof can't really be replaced, because any metal roof that one puts up there would not look historic. He said that the cedar shakes were original to the house. Kevin Burford said the maintenance of the metal roof was problematic in any case, and the cedar shake roof was a more historic surface. Miklo said he received an e-mail from Jack Porter, the architect for the State Historical Society, who expressed concern about the loss of original materials, including metal roofs. Miklo said there are extenuating circumstances here, such as the steepness of this particular roof and the condition of the roof. He said that in the future, when the situation is non-storm related, with a less steep pitch, the Commission will want to look at these very closely. Miklo said that whatever the Commission decides here should not necessarily set a precedent that the Commission will allow metal roofs to easily come off and be replaced. Kevin Burford said there is no one around who has the skills to replace these metal roofs. Weitzel said that one of the extenuating circumstances here is that a big portion of the roof came off, not just small pieces. He agreed that new metal roofs do not look like the old standing seam roofs. Weitzel said that in the future, for roofs, it should be allowed for homeowners to immediately redo the decking and put tarpaper on, and that would be a watertight roof for at least a week, until the Commission can review it. Helen Burford suggested that the guidelines be clarified. She said the guidelines favor returning to the original roof. Weitzel said that when the Commission passed that guideline, it was not consulting directly with the Historical Society. He said that what they are concerned about now is that, as every one of these roofs comes off, the remainder become more unique and valuable historically. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 2 McCafferty said that one needs to look at the practicality of this. She said that after talking with roofing contractors, she found that it is very difficult to put replacement pans in a metal roof and that they tend to leak. McCafferty added that the number of contractors available who do this work is very limited. Gunn said that if a standing seam metal roof is taken off and a metal roof goes back on that is a wide, raised ribbed roof with a big cap on top, that looks worse than shingles and worse than the original. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of a metal roof at 113 South Johnson Street with asphalt shingles. Brennan seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 942 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said that the proposal is to replace the existing vinyl siding with new vinyl siding, replace seven metal windows with metal clad windows, the reconstruction of a porch on the southeast corner, and reconstruction of the part of the roof that was damaged on the southeast corner. Consultant said that one part of the fascia board and soffit is totally gone. He said that he already re- trussed the roof on one side, and now he will have to resheath the roof. Consultant said there was a tongue and groove soffit underneath it, and he will match that as closely as he can. He said that he will then match the board. Consultant said that the extension will also come out of the side. He stated that he would get the house back almost to the way it was. Consultant said that the whole house has synthetic vinyl siding all over it. He said the only thing that is not synthetic is the fish scales on the gables and the soffits with the tongue and groove type wood. Consultant said he would power wash and repaint all the exposed wood. He said that the house has been approved by the insurance adjustor for vinyl siding. Consultant said that there was some stucco damage on the north wall in the rear and also on the west wall. He said that he would also repair and repaint that damage. Consultant said he also needs to fix the roof and would like to use a laminated, architectural shingle. Consultant said that the main point is that he is going to get the house back as it was. He said there is a door over what used to be a porch on one side of the house, but the decking has been gone forever. Consultant said the only thing there was just a little three-foot hangover that has a crown molding and slants down. He said that the decking has not been there for a long time, at least not since Buxton brought the property. Weitzel asked about the wall that has been pushed out a little bit. Consultant said that Buxton hired a structural engineer to fix the wall. He said the engineer will pull out all the sheet rock on the inside and all the siding off the outside and then pour it back into the floor. Consultant said that when the engineer is done, he will insulate it and side it. Carlson asked about the large front window. Weitzel said there is decorative detail on the window. Buxton said that he believed that Dyer, his contractor ordered a replacement wood window for that. Consultant said that the top part of the window was not damaged. Weitzel said there is an exterior pane and also interior leaded glass. He said he would like to see the leaded part retained if at all possible. Maharry asked if there is anything that is not going back to the way it was before the tornado. Consultant said he could not speak to the window situation, but said that everything else would go back the way it was. Terdalkar asked if the decking of the porch would be put back under the porch. Buxton said there has not been a deck there for a long time. He said there was a door there, but it is covered by vinyl siding. Terdalkar said the application refers to reconstruction of the porch. Consultant said there is work that needs to be done on the northeast porch of the house. McCafferty asked what the applicant would be doing with the column. Maharry said the application states that the porch will be reconstructed. Consultant said that refers to the porch roof. Weitzel said that when Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 3 the deck was put down, the column was probably installed then. He said that a round column would be more normal here. Buxton asked if there is a reason to put a deck there if there is no door to get onto the deck. He said that when he purchased the property, there was just a roof over the grass there. Weitzel said that because this is a contributing property, the Commission would usually like to see a higher level of restoration. Brennan said the reconstruction would not be required, because this is a non- conforming property. Terdalkar said the question is just whether the owner is considering anything. McCafferty said that what the applicant would do would not preclude the porch from being reconstructed in the future. Buxton said there is a fire escape from the basement window here for egress. He said there could therefore not be a deck constructed here. Consultant said they would rather not construct a porch on the front of the house on the southeast side if not required. Buxton said that the reference in the application to reconstructing the porch refers to the roof and reconstructing it the way it was before the tornado. Miklo said it is a question for the Commission - if it would be better not to put it back if it did not have the deck under it. Buxton repeated that the deck would interfere with his fire escape. Maharry said that the proposal is to reconstruct the house so that it looks similar to the picture of it before the tornado came through. Consultant said that was true with the exception of the porch on the southeast corner. Weitzel asked if it is not allowed or not recommended to put vinyl siding on a contributing structure. Brennan said that the zoning code allowed a structure that was non-conforming before to be restored to its previous state. Miklo said he was not sure that would apply under the new code. He said that the new code applies to the use, setback, parking, and preservation standards. Weitzel said the issues include reconstruction of the roof and the trim board/barge board on the front, repairing the wall, the issue of whether or not to repair the porch and how it should look if rebuilt, and the issue of the siding. He said the guidelines recommend against vinyl siding on a contributing structure and recommend using wood or fiber cement board. Weitzel said the Friends of Historic Preservation are offering a grant for this type of thing, and there are two other sources of grant money, as well as discounts from at least one building supply store for fiber cement board. He said that the Friends of Historic Preservation will help when there is a gap between the insurance settlement and what repair will cost, and there is an appropriation from the State for repair funds. Weitzel said he would need Consultant to outline his costs for the reconstruction and what the insurance will cover, and the Commission will work out a package for the difference. Consultant said he could produce that information in detail. Consultant said that a fiber cement board that is basically just a flat panel is made for the corners. He said he would not touch the window trim, except to paint it. McCafferty said that on some of the windows, whether or not it has been covered, is a drip cap, which is the molded edge that typically projects out. She said that is made of wood and has to be flashed. McCafferty said the question is whether that has been removed and if it has to be reconstructed. Maharry said that if it is not there now, it will have to be put up. He said it would have been there originally. Weitzel said that the drip cap is a functional piece of the window that will keep water form getting behind the window into the wall. Gunn said that at a minimum, it would need a metal drip cap to make it watertight. He said the question is whether there was something else there. Consultant said the window trim itself seems to be pretty sound as it is. Gunn said it is then possible to look at this as putting on the fiber cement cornerboards. He said that if the wood on the window trim is intact, it just takes a metal drip cap. Gunn said there were not always moldings on top, but there would have been a drip cap. Maharry said he does not necessarily recommend that it go back on, but if one goes to the trouble of putting fiber cement board on, it won't improve the exterior appearance if decorative capitals are not put Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 4 on. He said he would be fine with repairing the vinyl to match what is currently there. Gunn said that this is not just a repair job - that the applicant plans to take off all the vinyl from all four sides of the house. Weitzel said the advantage to the contractor and. owner is that when the wood is removed to put on the fiber cement board, there will be access to the wall cavities and they will be able to insulate. Gunn said that the original wood siding has to be removed to put on fiber cement board. He said the sheathing does not have to be removed. Weitzel agreed that the process would not work unless the wood is removed. Consultant said he would not have a problem with that. He agreed to remove the wood and then use fiber cement board all around. Consultant added that the insurance company would only pay for vinyl siding, because that's what was on the house. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriate for the application for 942 Iowa Avenue for the roof, as specified; for the repair of the bulging wall, as specified; for removal of all the wood siding to be replaced by fiber cement board, leaving the trim of the windows in place; not requiring that the porch roof be reconstructed; with the front leaded glass window to remain in place; and the new windows, as specified. Gunn said the windows were proposed to be double-hung, metal clad wood windows. Carlson asked if any of the proposed windows would be any different from the windows that were there before the tornado. Consultant said they would all be the same and would all be the same size. Carlson said that if the dimensions or number of sashes are not changed, then that would be fine. Ponto seconded the motion. Maharry asked if the application addresses the main floor south facing window. Consultant said he would have to check with Dyer to make sure the ordered window only replaces the section below the leaded window. Maharry said the application specifies a double hung window to replace the window that was originally there. Weitzel said he believes it is a fixed window. He said that the storm is a standard T, but the window behind is a transom with the one big pane below. Carlson said that in that case, the window should probably not be replaced with a double hung window. Gunn asked for the window dimensions, and Terdalkar responded that it is 53 by 66. Gunn asked the consultant if he would be willing to use fixed glass. Consultant said that would be okay. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Gunn moved to amend the main motion to approve the south elevation decorative window on the first floor as a single-glass fixed unit and not double hung windows. Ponto seconded the amendment. Carlson said his one concern is the wholesale removal of what is possibly still good wood siding underneath the vinyl. He said he did not know whether or not what is putting back what was there, the vinyl siding, wouldn't actually be perhaps less aesthetic, but better for the house in the long term. Gunn stated that the Commission used to not allow fiber cement board. He said that he recalls cases in which someone had taken fiber cement board siding and replaced just portions of the wood siding. Gunn said it was a very good match and would not be noticed unless one knew it was there. Miklo said this is not just an aesthetic concern. He said that the vinyl and aluminum tend to collect moisture and cause rot to the wall. McCafferty asked Carlson if he was talking about saving the wood underneath and just painting it. Carlson said that would be the preferred option. McCafferty said that where the vinyl has been blown off, the wood is all gray, so that it would be much more difficult to paint. Weitzel said it would probably cost more to bring the wood back than it would to take it off. Brennan said that he would heartily encourage the owner to go with the fiber cement board, but if the owner wants to replace the vinyl, Brennan believed that he could under the Act of God, non-conforming provision of the zoning code. He said he thinks the owner has that option under 14-4E-6, but he believes the fiber cement board would look much better and would encourage the use of that material. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 5 Terdalkar asked if siding is a non-conformity or a non-contributing feature. Brennan said that non- conforming refers to requirements or standards that relate to the design of the building or structure, which subsequently, due to a change in the zoning requirements, is no longer in conformance. He said that at the time the siding it was put on, it was okay under the zoning code, but if someone wanted to put siding on today, he could not, because of the zoning code. Terdalkar said he discussed this with the City Attorney's Office, and the City Attorney's Office said that would not be applicable here. Brennan said he respectfully disagreed. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1. with Carlson votina no. 946 Iowa Avenue. Consultant said that this house obviously needs a roof, although that was left out of the application. He said that Kurt Dyer is the contractor for the project and will be doing some aspects of the work. Consultant said the plan is to repair this back to normal. He added that there is a column to be replaced, but the original column was a fake, metal column. Consultant said that the soffit was all vinyl, but he has been told that he has to use wood soffit to replace the vinyl. Terdalkar said that Dyer has told him that he will use wood soffit, and that is in the application. McCafferty said that bead board fiber cement board is available, but it doesn't look like the traditional old bead board. Consultant said that if the Commission wanted him to use fiber cement board, he could do that. Consultant said he would like to go back through the grant process. He said that the exterior material is an asphalt shingle about 1 % inch thick and was from the 40s and 50s. Consultant said that it is all beaten up, and he would have to do something with it. McCafferty said there is a fiber board underneath it. Consultant agreed that there is a backing. He said that if the Commission can help with the grant money, he would be happy to put fiber cement board back on that and make it look a lot more attractive. Consultant said that the roof will go back the way it was. He said that he is working on the soffit, fascia, dormers, roof, and siding. Consultant said that Dyer will be working on the porch and the windows. Consultant said that there was some damage to the siding. He said he did not know how much the insurance company would pay on the siding, because he did not think the value of the siding was very high. Maharry asked if there is wood siding under the layers. Consultant said that there is but that it is not in great shape. Weitzel said that because Dyer is not here, the Commission could consider dividing this into two motions in order to deal with the porch later. Maharry asked, siding aside, if the design and appearance of the front porch would be different from what was there before. Consultant said that it was his understanding that it would be nearly identical. Buxton said that the columns that were ordered would be 12 inches in diameter, instead of 14, because 12 was the biggest size he could get. He said the columns would be made out of fiberglass. Carlson asked if the windows would be replaced just as they were. Consultant said that is his understanding. Gunn asked for specifics regarding the siding. Consultant said he would remove it all from the whole house and put fiber cement board back up in whatever construction method it takes to put it up. He said that he really can't tell what is behind all of the material. Consultant said that anything that is exposed wood, of which there is very little, will be power washed and painted. He said that the whole top was already done with aluminum soffit and vinyl, so the only possible wood would be the underneath of the porch. Consultant said that the porch roof of the porch on the second floor was damaged. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 946 Iowa Avenue with the repair of the structure and decking of the roof and application of asphalt shingles, replacing the existing soffits with tongue and groove wood or fiber cement board material, rebuilding the porch to match the original design, removing the siding and replacing it Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 6 with fiber cement board while retaining all window trim that is sound, and replacing all non-sound window trim with wood or fiber cement board. Ponto seconded the motion. Terdalkar asked about the railing for the porch on the 2nd level and if it was pressure treated wood. Buxton confirmed this. Terdalkar said the application refers to a "railing with a simple square spindle baluster, paintable wood." AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Gunn moved to amend the main motion to require the porch to have a painted balustrade and to remove and replace six windows, as specified, with wood metal clad windows the meet historic standards. Ponto seconded the amendment. Baker said, for clarification, that discussion of siding was included in the motion, although it was not included in the original application. Weitzel said that happens as a result of negotiations with the applicant. He said the point is to allow discussion and come to common ground. Terdalkar asked if the siding also included the siding on the dormers. Consultant said that the vinyl will be removed, so he would have to put something back on and would want to match the rest of the house. Terdalkar said that on the front elevation there is a pair of mismatched windows in the dormer. He suggested that it would be preferred to have them be the same size. Weitzel said there is an original window and an egress window there. He said the original window is a short, leaded, glass window. Miklo said it would be good to have them be the same size, and Terdalkar pointed out that it is just a suggestion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 929 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar stated that the front portion of the building was damaged and has been rebuilt already. He said the applicant, Jeff Clark, is requesting approval for the replacement of existing windows with the windows shown in the application. Terdalkar said the applicant is proposing to redesign part of the fa<;ade, and some of the windows will be changed for egress purposes. McCafferty said the first plan is to replace all the old wood windows with windows with the same mutton bar pattern as is currently there. She said that where there are two windows on the bedrooms, those would be replaced with one large slider window with mutton bar and coat check rail. McCafferty pointed out that this is a non-historic building. McCafferty said the owner wants to put in an all-aluminum window made by Quaker. She said that it looks very similar to a wood window. McCafferty said that where there is a door and large picture window on one side, the owner would like to remove the door, window, and brick below the window, and put in a slider patio door. Clark said that it would be a six foot by six foot eight, aluminum patio sliding door. He said he would like to replace the picture windows in the living rooms with a patio slider too. Clark said he would take the two double hungs to meet egress and do a sliding aluminum window with mutton bars to simulate double hung windows. He said he would like to do that throughout the whole complex. Clark said he would install a sliding patio window and then take the others and make them a four foot by four foot egress window. He said that the doors would remain. McCafferty said that would result in a patio door and one window. Clark said that the roof needs to be replaced, and he would like to replace that with a weathered wood. He added that there is no match for the brick on the front. Clark said he wants to put on something to accent the building so that the building will look better. McCafferty said they would like to use a dark orange color to wrap around where the brick is missing and complement the rest of the brick. Gunn asked about the roof being rebuilt. Clark said the roof was put back on to make it watertight. He said that in talking about rebuilding the roof, he was just referring to putting on new shingles. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application at 929 Iowa Avenue, as submitted, with the addition of the re-bricking of the two major facades on each building that were removed by the tornado and the installation of the sliding patio doors in place of the center, living room windows. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 7 Gunn said that considering that this is a non-historic property, the Commission can give fairly wide latitude. Terdalkar asked if there would be any size changes with the new window openings. Clark said the openings would probably be a little bit narrower, except that the patio door would be six feet by six feet eight. He said the slider windows would by four feet by four feet. Maharry seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 617 East Colleae. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to reroof the building at 617 East College Street. Weitzel said that this was a standing metal seam roof to be replaced with asphalt shingles. Carlson asked how badly the roof was damaged, and Weitzel responded that it is gone. Maharry seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 923 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said this application is to demolish the structure at 923 Iowa Avenue, which is a non-contributing structure in a conservation district. He said that the third story of the building was destroyed in the recent storm. Weitzel said this was non-contributing, because it was a house added on to a house. McCafferty said that it was originally a Victorian house, but then the owners encased it in a four-square and added the third story. She stated that the addition was put on between 1920 and 1926. Carlson said that 1926 seems to be long enough ago to make this a contributing structure. Miklo pointed out that the house really had no recognizable style. Weitzel said that the alterations were done in a historic period, but Amy Smothers, who surveyed the house, did not feel that the alterations had achieved significance in their own right, because they weren't done in a manner sympathetic to the original design. Carlson said he agreed with that. McCafferty said the property owner is trying to determine what he can do with this building. McCafferty said she would at least like to hear discussion about what the Commission might allow, even if that does not result in a vote at this time. She said she realized that a demolition permit requires a drawing of what will replace the building, but she has not yet had time to produce any plans. McCafferty said that the insurance settlement was for $400,000. She said that it would take at least that much to reconstruct the house, and the owner would prefer to demolish the building and construct a new one. McCafferty said the owner is trying to determine whether the Commission would allow the demolition, if in fact there would be a sympathetic building that the Commission would approve that would go in. McCafferty said that the building had nine units - efficiencies and one-bedrooms. She said that if the owner rebuilt the building, the most units he could have would be seven, but they could have additional bedrooms. McCafferty said she will not know what the exact occupancy of the building could be until there are further studies to look at parking, square footage, and other factors. She said that if the Commission absolutely will not let the building be torn down, the owner would like to know that now, in order to do further work to protect the building. Gunn said the intent of requiring approval for what will replace a building was for the purpose of giving the owner fair warning that he would have to comply with certain guidelines, which are contained in Sections 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2. He stated that, given this situation, he thought the Commission could approve the demolition with the full understanding that the guidelines have to be complied with. McCafferty said she informed the owner that one of the risks of demolishing this is that if he can't get the same density that he had here. She said the owner does not see it as financially feasible to rebuild this house, and it seems likely that he could get at least the same number of bedrooms in a new structure that would comply. Weitzel asked if the owner was willing to take that risk, and McCafferty confirmed this. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 8 Ponto asked if the new building would have to meet the guidelines for multi-family buildings. McCafferty said that both sections would be applicable. McCafferty said the owner discussed doing a building that kind of looked like a duplex but would actually have multiple units. She showed other examples of a direction that the owner might go. Miklo said that the owner would have to comply with height limitations, so the new building could be at most two and one-half stories. He said that would be more in scale with the rest of the neighborhood. Ponto said that these are exceptional circumstances, and he would be in favor of allowing the demolition. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the structure at 923 Iowa Avenue. Maharry said that the Commission cannot approve the demolition, because the applicant has not submitted a plan for a new building. Miklo said that the Commission could basically take a straw poll to give the owner a direction. Gunn said his rationale for allowing the demolition before a plan is proposed is that the only reason the Commission ever included the requirement for new building plans was to educate the owner of the building to be demolished to the fact that the guidelines would have to be complied with. Weitzel said his only concern is whether the Commission has a mechanism to make the owner build something at that point, if the owner demolishes the building. McCafferty said this is a valuable piece of property that no one would let sit empty. Miklo said a straw poll would give the owner confidence to go ahead and design a new building. Weitzel stated that he would rather approve a demolition permit than have the owner demolish the property after the Commission does a straw poll and without the permit. Ponto said he believes that this is an exceptional circumstance, and the building is half gone anyway. He said it is different when there is an intact structure. Weitzel added that the building is approaching the point where there is a safety issue. Gunn said the question is whether what is there is better than nothing there, should the owner choose not to rebuild. He said the whole thing was designed to prevent the demolition of a reasonably good structure to put up something ugly. Gunn said the point was to make sure everyone knew they had to comply with the guidelines. He said there is nothing there, in his opinion, that is so precious that the Commission cares if it is gone. Gunn said his interest is in making sure the owner understands he cannot build something like it again. McCafferty said that the owner does understand that. Gunn seconded the motion. Carlson referred to Iowa City guidelines for demolition, 7.0, where it says that in a case like this, "Demolishing a primary building on a non-contributing property: decision will be made on a case-by-case basis for these cases. The Commission will consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the outbuilding or non-contributing building." He said everyone would probably agree that the condition and integrity are pretty bad, and the architectural significance is also not high enough to really warrant saving the building, especially at the cost involved. Maharry said that the Commission is usually supposed to have a plan in place before approving demolition, and the Commission is allowing this for an extraordinary circumstance. Weitzel said there is a special circumstance for safety reasons also. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto moved to amend the main motion to include the statement that any new construction would have to comply with the appropriate sections of the guidelines, including Sections 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, and 8.2 and receive a certificate of appropriateness for approval of the building. Gunn seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0. 30 South Governor. Terdalkar said this application is for the reconstruction of a damaged roof. He said the owner has already changed part of the roof on the north side, which is a shed roof. Terdalkar said the porch columns will be repaired, and the trim will be matched or repaired. He said the only change during the reconstruction would be the change in the shed roof in the back of the house on the north side. Weitzel said that involved a change in pitch, but not a change in style. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 9 McCafferty said the pitch was really low, and the owner raised it a little bit. She said the owner raised the pitch slightly for better drainage, and the plate height was not changed. Gunn said that this is a landmark property. McCafferty said it was named a landmark property when the conservation district was done and said that Helen Keller used to stay in this house, as well as Stephen Baker, who was instrumental in establishing the Carnegie Library. Gunn asked about the siding. McCafferty said the owner would install siding to match. She said the siding is all wood now, and it would be replaced with wood siding. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 30 South Governor Street, as proposed, with the clarification that wood siding will be used to repair the damaged wood siding. Baker seconded the motion. Carlson said the application refers to replacing or repairing the metal roof with asphalt. McCafferty said that somewhere there is a metal roof on the building that the owner is not sure if he can replace, although she is not aware of where that metal roof is located. Ponto said the change in the pitch of the shed roof is not substantial and is okay with him. Carlson said the Commission has allowed changes in pitch for drainage before, and this does not obscure anything original on the house. Weitzel said it is also on a previously altered part of the building. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 715 East ColleQe. Terdalkar said this proposal is to reconstruct the barn as it was, with the exception of the metal roof to be changed to asphalt shingles and to not replace the brick chimney that has collapsed. Weitzel said it appears that the chimney collapsed when contractors lifted the building in order to put in a new foundation, after the whole thing rocked off its footings. He said that the foundation was brick, with concrete poured over it. Weitzel said the issues include allowing the owner to put the building on the new foundation, replacing the roof with asphalt shingles to match the house, and not rebuilding the brick chimney. He said the chimney was very utilitarian and not one of the more decorative ones. Weitzel said that the chimney cannot be seen from the street, and the cost of rebuilding it would be prohibitive for what the owner would get back out of it. Carlson suggested including that in the motion, because he would not want to encourage the demolition of all chimneys based on this. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 715 East College Street, as submitted. Brennan seconded the motion. Carlson said that the Commission should state that it is allowing the metal roof to be replaced here because it is partially damaged, and it is difficult or impossible to get it replaced or at least extremely expensive to get it replaced. He said the Commission has allowed it for other tornado-damaged buildings and so therefore is allowing it here. Regarding the foundation, Carlson said it appeared as though it was concrete before, because it was concrete over brick. Terdalkar confirmed this and said it is just at the grade level. Carlson said there will then be no change in appearance, so that would be fine as well. He said there would be no other change in appearance. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 815 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar stated that this application originally was to only rebuild the porch roof as it was before. He said the applicant took off the siding, understanding that it did not require a permit. Terdalkar said the owner now wants to put on vinyl siding and is now considering opening up the enclosed area as a porch, as it was before. Terdalkar said this application is for residing with vinyl siding. He said that this is a non-contributing structure in a conservation district. Miklo said that the vinyl could be allowed as an exception, and the Commission may want to offer some compromise, such as approving the vinyl siding subject to opening the porch up as per the original plans. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 10 Terdalkar showed photographs of the house, the enclosed porch, and damage to the house. Weitzel said that the whole back would be torn off, and a small porch would be rebuilt. Maharry said the Commission would need to see plans for that. Miklo said this house would be a good candidate to have the siding restored, although the owner is interested in restoring the porch. Terdalkar said staff is not certain that the owner would be willing to open up the porch, although the contractor had said the owner was interested in that. Ponto asked if, since this is a non-contributing structure in a conservation district, the Commission had any authority to deny vinyl siding. Weitzel said that the Commission can do it if it has a reason. He said the Commission has the latitude to require wood or fiber cement board if it can justify it. Terdalkar said he believes that the exception can be made, but the applicant is not entitled to the exception. Brennan said that as long as the owner meets the four bullet points under exception, vinyl siding would be allowed. Miklo said the guidelines state, "May be used upon the Commission's approval." Gunn said that Section 3.2 gives the Commission the right to essentially drop any of the standards if it chooses to. He said that is the blanket guideline that gives the Commission the discretion to address anything and everything. Gunn said that is not the same as the exceptions written over and over that are exceptions to stricter historic district guidelines. He said this is the first time he has ever heard that they are exceptions when the Commission decides they're exceptions or not when the Commission decides they are not. Maharry said he would have to agree. Ponto said the Commission always encourages people to avoid vinyl siding, but in this particular case, if the owner is asking for it and meets the four bullet points, the Commission cannot deny it. Miklo added that this is a property that, if it were looked at now, would probably be considered contributing. Carlson said the Commission should make sure that the bullet points are met and that what trim is there is retained and that the vinyl matches as closely as possible to the original wood siding in exposure, texture, and design. Gunn asked if this application is for the vinyl siding and the porch. Terdalkar said that the porch is not on the table; it is a potential project. Maharry asked if there is evidence that the wood siding is severely deteriorated. Miklo said the owner's concern is painting and maintaining the wood siding in the future. Maharry said the standards say that unless it is severely deteriorated, historic siding must not be removed. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 815 Iowa Avenue for removal of the porch with the replacement with an original-type porch to be approved at a later time, as well as, in order of preference, the repair and replacement of the existing wood; or the replacement of the existing siding with fiber cement board; or, as a last resort, the application of vinyl siding on the house, in compliance with the exception on page 17 of the guidelines. Ponto seconded the motion. Maharry said that there has been no evidence presented that the siding meets the standard of severely deteriorated. Terdalkar said the owner is not supposed to remove the siding if it is not severely deteriorated and will therefore have to side over the current siding. Carlson said he wanted to express his discomfort with removing sound, original siding in order to put fiber cement board on but said he would vote in favor of the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Minutes for Aoril 27. 2006 Meetina: MOTION: Carlson moved to defer consideration of the minutes of the Commission's April 2th meeting to a future meeting. Maharry seconded the motion. The motion carried bv consensus. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 11 OTHER: Weitzel said that State Senator Joe Bolkcom had obtained a $250,000 appropriation from the State for Johnson County, although Weitzel was not certain what the parameters for receiving the money would be. Miklo said he suspected that it would go into HRDP programs, so someone would have to apply to the State. Weitzel said it would be an emergency fund and would be available fairly immediately. Miklo said the money would be for restoration projects. Weitzel said that a memo was issued regarding the workshop that was held last week. He said that it was an informational session, and response seemed to be generally favorable. Miklo said there is also a $10,000 grant to be used to help pay for what insurance settlements do not. He said the pitch to the National Trust was that the money would primarily be used for repair of wood siding or replacement of wood siding with fiber cement board instead of vinyl, although it could be used for other things such as windows, etc. Miklo said the grant needs to be administered in some fashion, so staff will be putting together an application form, possibly based on the key, contributing, and non-contributing status of the building, in terms of priority. He said that the Commission might also want to consider income guidelines, as well as the visibility of the building in question. Maharry asked how many more applications for siding would be forthcoming. Terdalkar estimated that there are 15 to 20 properties with siding damage. He said there are at least 10 to 15 properties that need siding replacement or repair that would have to receive a certificate of appropriateness. Miklo reminded Commission members that there would be another special meeting on Thursday, May 11th, at 6:00 p.m. Maharry said he would be out of town and unable to attend. All other members said that they would be able to attend the meeting, and Terdalkar said that would constitute a quorum. Terdalkar said that there have been nine issued permits for intermediate reviews and certificates of no material effect, along with nine certificates approved at tonight's meeting. Maharry suggested that photographs be taken during the rebuilding process. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcdlminuleslhpcl2006HPCminutesl05-04-06,doc MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Preliminary MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Maharry STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Jeff Clark, Shelley McCafferty, Mark McCallum, Cindy the House Corporation President from Alpha Chi Omega Sorority CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Appropriateness: 929 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said that the Commission considered this application at the previous week's meeting. He stated that some of the items were not on that application, so the Commission is reconsidering them with information that will give enough details to write a certificate. He said that the applicant has provided some more information regarding what the openings will be and the dimensions. Terdalkar said that the Commission still needs the dimensions of the profile of the slider doors that are to be installed. McCafferty said that the drawings provided to Terdalkar show what the owner wants to do with the brick fa~ade - the portion that was damaged and then removed. McCafferty said she tried to look at the original drawings and incorporate that pattern with the stripe and the banding. Weitzel said that the drawings show a very prairie style building originally in the design. McCafferty showed a sample of the bricks that she would use for the building and said that although she could not match the texture or size, she got pretty good matches on the color. McCafferty said that, related to finishes and cladding, on the top floor inside the courtyard, there was originally T111 siding. She said that Clark, the owner, would like to replace that T111 with fiber cement board clapboard. McCafferty said that based on the era of the house, eight inches would be a common exposure for houses of that vintage. Weitzel said that the top floor had basically a 1970s vertical siding. McCafferty confirmed this and said that it doesn't really last a long time. Terdalkar said the drawings show an additional window on the front elevation. McCafferty said that would be covered up; all the bathroom windows have been covered up. She said that all the bathroom windows, which are located on the back of the courtyard with a few in the front, were covered so that vents could be added. McCafferty said the applicant would just brick over that bathroom window. Clark pointed out that they were covered up before the storm. Terdalkar suggested that windows be added on the side elevation in the living rooms. McCafferty said that Clark would be looking to see if that was okay structurally. Clark said that he has a time frame in which to complete this. He said he would be going in and gutting out everything in the lower units, and he did not want to do that if he didn't need to. Weitzel said, for clarification, that staff has proposed a couple of changes in the design, but the applicant does not want to make the changes. McCafferty said that Clark proposes to change out all the windows, as long as he has to change the damaged windows anyway. McCafferty said the windows would be aluminum windows made by Quaker, and Clark would like to use stock sizes where possible, instead of doing custom sizes, although some openings would require custom sizes because the window openings are too small. McCafferty said the owner would also like to install patio doors where there are currently picture windows. She referred to the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 11, 2006 Page 2 picture windows that are inside the courtyard and said the opening will actually have to be smaller, so she proposes to brick up the sides with the new colored terra cotta brick. McCafferty said that on the front there is also a picture window and a door, and the owner wants to put a patio door there, with terra cotta colored brick on one side. Terdalkar said the Commission requested that there be a wider profile for the doors, not just thin sections. McCafferty asked if it should be the same as the window or two inches or what. Terdalkar said not just two inches, but something that will replicate the bottom rail for the doors. Clark said that if it is possible, he would be willing to go with the wider rail. He stated that he likes the aluminum doors, because they don't get beat up like the other types. Terdalkar said that the metal on the patio door design looks very flimsy. He suggested that there be a better profile. Weitzel said the comment he heard was that they are a thin, banded shiny material and don't match the building very well. Terdalkar said that if they are painted, that would be an added benefit. McCafferty said they come in colors. Clark said he would not have a problem with it if they can be made that way. He said he did not want to use wood or vinyl for the sliding patio doors, because they don't hold up very well. Clark asked, if they can be made of aluminum and he can widen that, what would be the suggestion for the width. Weitzel said it was suggested that the bottom rail be taken and applied equally. Terdalkar said that would be three to four inches, and he would like to see that all the way around. Clark said that if he can get them that way, he would buy them that way. Weitzel said that if the Commission agreed, the motion could be written to have that detail approved by staff and the chair. McCafferty said that on page four, the windows located along the courtyard side are larger than the ones in the back side. She said that in order to use a standard unit, she would have to put some infill panels in it. She said they would be painted the sandstone color. Terdalkar asked if there is a reason for reducing the size of the windows. McCafferty said they would like to get standard windows off the shelf to minimize the amount of customization to be done. She said that where there are single double hungs, that will have to be a custom size, because the opening is too short and a standard size can't be used. Weitzel asked if the windows to be filled in are on mostly on the interior elevations of the courtyard. McCafferty responded that those are mostly on the inside courtyard. She said that the courtyard size is a larger opening than the rest of the building. Terdalkar said that the windows on the outer elevations would also be changed, and McCafferty confirmed this. She said that is where the egress windows are needed. Weitzel asked what happens on the east and west elevations. McCafferty said they would have to use custom windows, and there would be no change in the openings there. McCafferty said there would be changes with the picture windows, the inside courtyard twin double hung windows, and patio doors and the double hung windows, and everything else would be the same. She said that the double hung windows would have mutton bars the same. McCafferty said that where there are sliders instead of double hungs, there would be a simulated checkrail. McCafferty said there is not the effect of the original design, because of the aluminum storms in front of them. She said this will give it some more detail. McCafferty said that on the upper floor of the courtyard, because the owner is changing out the T111, the size of the opening will actually be the same as the new windows. She said that the extra fillers are only required on the lower and the brick that's on the side of the patio doors, where there is masonry opening. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 929 Iowa Avenue with the following: replacement of the T board with fiber cement board, replacement of the damaged brick, replacement of the east and west living room picture windows with patio doors with fill in brick, replacement of the north living room combination door/windows with patio doors with fill in brick, replacement of windows with the gaps filled in with wood filler panels, replacement of other windows with windows of the same size, and replacement of courtyard double hung windows with slider windows. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 11, 2006 Page 3 Carlson asked if the double hung windows to be replaced with sliders would be the ones just on the 2nd floor. Terdalkar said they would be the windows on the second floor without the filler and with the filler on the first floor. Carlson asked if there is a total of only six in the entire building. McCafferty replied that there are also some as one faces Iowa Avenue where the wing projects out, on the inside of the wings. Carlson seconded the motion. Carlson said that his one quibble with this is that the blocking down of both the door and window openings doesn't look that great, even though this is a non-historic building, and the Commission can allow a lot of latitude. Weitzel said the germane question is if this would detract from the neighborhood. He said that even if the building is non-historic, the Commission gets to review that standard. Carlson said he thought that all of the window and door guidelines would still come into play, because this is a historic district. Weitzel agreed there are no exceptions for materials on a modern building in a historic district. Terdalkar discussed exceptions for changing the size in this case. Carlson said that a door can be blocked down to fit a modern door, but there is no exception for blocking down windows to accommodate modern windows. Weitzel said that on a historic building, it would look odd to use blocking down to make a window smaller. He said he thought the intent was to not allow standard window sizes if it would make the building look worse. Carlson stated that, in his opinion, this would make the building a little worse, but he said it was up to the Commission to decide if it would look enough worse to deny the windows. Weitzel said he and Terdalkar discussed the elaborate plans for this building and what it was originally going to look like. Weitzel said the plans were never executed, so the building never reached its full potential. McCafferty said that the three criteria that apply, from page 11 of the handbook state: does not further detract from the historic character of the neighborhood, does not create a false historic character, and is compatible with the style and character of the non-historic property. Ponto said he thought this would be okay. Baker said she also thought this was okay. She said she had similar concerns as Carlson but did not feel this was tremendously worse. Carlson said he was expressing concerns without expressing opposition. Gunn said he agreed with Carlson. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 811 Y2 East Colleae. McCallum, the owner of the property, said there is a little carriage house behind the sanitarium property that he owns. He said the carriage house has steel siding on the second floor and was historically built from salvage. McCallum said that before the sanitarium was built in 1927, there was a Victorian house, so parts of the sanitarium used salvage from the Victorian house. He said that some of the bricks on the carriage house are burnt, so he believes that occurred in the fire that destroyed the main building. McCallum said the building does not have any architectural style except a hybrid of what was used. He stated that the upper level underneath the steel siding appears to be a wood shake. McCallum said one option is to paint the steel siding, although his inclination is to peel the siding off to see what is under the wood. He said that if the wood shakes underneath are in good shape, he may not have to replace them. McCallum showed photographs of the carriage house. He said that if the wood shakes underneath show something unexpected, then he will probably peel that off and then reside it, probably with the thin shakes. McCallum said that there are exterior entrances off of a stairway that go up to the second floor of the carriage house. He said that right now they have steel slab doors. McCallum said he can paint the slab door and leave it, but architecturally he would prefer an atrium door. He said, however, that he is concerned about using atrium doors because the tenants may not feel secure with that type of door. McCallum said that Terdalkar has proposed doing a little trellis over the tramway on the back side of the building. McCallum said he is probably leaning toward using six-panel doors, because the doors inside Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 11, 2006 Page 4 the apartments are raised, six-panel doors, but it would be an improvement over the 70s slab door that is there now. McCallum said that when he pulls the trim around the windows, depending on what he finds, he might try to widen the trim boards to create a more defining feature. He said he doesn't know if part of the trim board is covered up already. McCallum said there are Marvin wood storms on the main building, but this building has metal storms. He said he may later use Marvin wood storms on the carriage house to give it more definition. He said these are all original windows. McCallum said that on the west side of the building, there is a doorway that is locked shut, because there are no stairs to the door but there is a three-foot drop outside of the door. He said the door has no functional use, but it is a prairie style door that is kind of interesting looking. McCallum said that he may just rebrick the doorway and fill it in. He said it is sort of a safety issue. McCallum said if he could figure out a way of doing a little step up to it, he might consider keeping it. McCallum said he is open to suggestions and would like to add some architectural interest to the building. Weitzel asked when this building was constructed. McCallum said he believes this was built before the sanitarium was built. Weitzel asked if the overhang is an addition. McCallum said that he believes the overhang was already there. He said that originally the downstairs was just a garage, but the building has gone through an evolution of additions and deletions. Weitzel asked if the sanitarium was built in 1926. McCallum said he had heard varying dates, including 1927 and 1929. He said that both buildings were built with salvage, but he believes the carriage house was built entirely from salvage. Weitzel asked if the style of the building has been altered or if it has always looked like this. He asked if it is a very modern building, with the glass block, overhang, and narrow windows, or if it has been significantly modified. Weitzel suggested that 1926 was a late date for keeping horses so that this was probably an automobile garage to begin with. McCallum said this was always referred to him as a carriage house by the previous landlord, but it was built as a garage. Weitzel said it was probably a modern style building from the beginning. McCallum confirmed this and said that the glass block was added where the garage doors used to be. He stated that the double hung windows on the lower level to the east were filled in and added as well. Weitzel said that this then is a very modern style building, art modere and from a kind of art deco-y period. He said that since this is a modern building, McCallum might want to drop the six-panel door to go with a two-panel or perhaps one large panel to fit more with a late 20s or early 30s building. McCallum said he could get such a door, but on the interior, there are six-panel doors. Terdalkar said that may because they used salvage doors from the Victorian house. McCallum said he could go with whatever the Commission approves and said that it would be better than a 70s slab door. He said that his long-term plans include enclosing the courtyard, in which case he would go with more of an atrium door. Carlson said that he felt this plan was fine with the possible exception of bricking in the west doorway. McCallum said he is not committed to that but is anticipating HIS telling him to remove that door at some point. He said he could wait until that time and then come back before the Commission. McCallum said that there is a three-foot dropoff out of the door, but there is no way to put a set of steps there without blocking the staircase to the basement. Carlson asked if there is a way to make the door secure without moving the entire opening. McCallum said he has secured it shut and locked it with a double-sided dead bolt. Carlson and Weitzel said that should be enough. Ponto said he was okay with everything in the application. He said he was okay with not blocking the door for now and waiting to see what happens with future inspections. MOTION: Carlson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 811 % East College Street, as proposed, for all presented options, with the exception of bricking in the west door way. Ponto seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 11, 2006 Page 5 Carlson stated that there was some discussion about a different door style that might be more appropriate. McCallum asked if Weitzel's suggestion would be for a two-paneled door with a window. Weitzel said that could be done with a privacy window or frosted glass. Carlson said he believes that a six-paneled door would look kind of colonial on a non-colonial building. McCallum said part of the input would come from tenants and what they would be comfortable with. Carlson said he would leave the two options, unless someone wanted to amend the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. McCallum presented each Commission member with a packet updating what he would like to eventually bring before the Commission. He showed a picture of his parking lot and said this was a philosophical discussion. McCallum asked the Commission members if the parking lot is what the Comprehensive Plan had in mind for a historic district. He said he did not think so. McCallum showed a photograph of the building that used to be located at 819 College Street, the site of the empty parking lot, that has since been moved to a location on Kimball Road. He said that the parking lot was constructed in the mid 80s, when the property was developed as a sorority house. McCallum said that because there was no parking, the sorority house bought both properties, removed the house, and built the parking lot to accommodate the sorority property. He said he therefore has 33 parking spaces, and since then, the other building has been converted back to an apartment building. McCallum said that the downzoning of the property prevents him from doing almost anything on that property except a parking lot. McCallum said he suggested doing a gatehouse here to Terdalkar, because a gatehouse is an accessory use to a parking lot. McCallum said he has since learned that he cannot have an accessory structure until there is a primary structure. He said the issue is that he has a building that at one time housed 45 women. McCallum said that now the building has 17 bedrooms and 13 units. He said that under the special provisions, he may go to Planning and suggest that, if the sanitarium is eligible for landmark status, he could possibly get landmark status put on the parking lot, in the same way that moving the Clinton Street house would have allowed an occupancy use for the building. Terdalkar said that the sanitarium is a landmark eligible property. McCallum said that he is looking at this from several angles. He wondered, if he could get landmark status for the sanitarium at 811 College, if he could then re-grandfather and get an exemption from the dimensional standards required for parking and then redevelop and recreate the house that was originally on the lot. McCallum said he is just throwing this out in a philosophical way, because no matter what kind of landscaping he does with the lot, it won't take away the big gaping whole on College Street that is his parking lot. He said that he will be talking to Planning and Zoning and the Board of Adjustment about this. McCallum said the language on page 47 of the new zoning code would not allow him to do this project in some way or another, although he thought it might, but he was not sure. He said he would like to have this reviewed to see what can be done. McCallum said he understands that zoning laws are designed. to downzone to prevent people from overdeveloping these neighborhoods. He said, however, that it shouldn't be there, nor should the Comprehensive Plan be there, to stop putting back what was there originally. McCallum said that a well- intentioned property owner who wants to do something other than 8,000 square feet of asphalt should not be penalized. He said that he is talking about a small 1 ,200 square foot house. McCallum said that another thought would be to designate this lot as a receptor site for another house that would be threatened by demolition. He said that the obstacle is the fact that the timing of it is fairly immediate. McCallum said that he won't have the luxury of time, should another house like this become available. Weitzel said the issue though is that there are zoning codes. He stated that the other boards beyond the Commission have to make these decisions. Weitzel said one of the things that triggered allowing a building to move onto that lot at all is the fact that a special exception can be granted to a landmark. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 11, 2006 Page 6 Weitzel said that not any building could be moved there, and he did not even know if a building could be constructed here, based on the new development code. He said that what should be discussed is if McCallum has a design that the Commission could say it would not be opposed to before he moves on. McCallum said what he is proposing is to see if there is some level of support for this general concept and to look at specifically the sections that affected historic preservation when the zoning code was rewritten. He said he is asking to empower the Board of Adjustment to make distinctions. Weitzel said the Commission cannot make that kind of change. He said that McCallum would have to work with the Planning Department and other boards and possibly have this passed by City Council. McCallum said the Historic Preservation Commission should have the ability to make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to Planning staff. Weitzel said that the Commission can't change that right now. McCallum said that last year the Commission was told that it had to accept what it would but could change things later. Weitzel said that the Commission isn't the body to change things, as this is not in the range of things the Commission is empowered to do. McCallum said he is wanting to do something interesting for the larger good and checking to see if there is any support for it. Weitzel said that if McCallum wanted to know if the Commission thought building a new house there was appropriate or if he had a design to be reviewed, that would be in the Commission's purview, but the Commission can't change the ordinance. McCallum said he would be seeking clarification of the current zoning code, because he is not sure that the current language would allow this to happen. He questioned if he got landmark status, if that would be enough. Weitzel said that if the property as it stands becomes a landmark, then the Commission would have to consider what impact an adjacent building would have on the landmark status of the sanitarium. He said that landmark status would not necessarily give permission to build something there; that isn't the way it works. Carlson said that the Commission could come to a consensus that it would be appropriate to have a historically appropriate building on that site. McCallum said that is the idea he is putting out. He said that if everything is in place, he would be willing to reconstruct a replica of what was there prior to 1985, to bring back the College Street fac;ade that was there before. McCallum said he would also be willing to redesign his driveway and use this as a receptor site, and then put lawn in where a future house could go that would be endangered. Weitzel said that any new building to be moved onto the site would have to be significant enough to be a landmark. McCallum said he agreed and said the reason for doing that is it would be eliminating all the steps he would have to go through while contractors wait to do the work. He said then there would be the landmark status in place for the sanitarium and the lot, and he could move more quickly on those situations. Weitzel said the Commission can't really do anything about the development code. McCallum said he believes that the Commission can make recommendations and put bugs in the ears of those who make those decisions. Weitzel said that if McCallum wanted to make that case, he would want to talk to staff about it to find out the appropriate channels to go through. McCallum suggested the Commission think about it. Weitzel said the Commission could discuss whether it could design the lot for a new building to come in the future and what it is that the Commission would allow. McCallum said that there are two separate lots here. Terdalkar said the only way the lots are connected is the fact that the parking requirement for the sanitarium is satisfied on the other lot. He said that if the parking area is reduced, the City would want to make sure that the parking requirements for the apartments are fulfilled. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 11, 2006 Page 7 McCallum said that the sanitarium never had any parking historically, aside from the carriage house. Terdalkar said that plan was from the 1920s. McCallum said the Board of Adjustment has the ability to exempt the parking requirements of the sanitarium, which might pave the way for the separate lot to then be redeveloped. Weitzel said the Board of Adjustment has to have a good reason to make an exemption. McCallum said the plan before the Commission would have enough to satisfy the parking needs for both buildings, according to the current code. Weitzel said that as it is drawn, there are two lots, one of which is primarily a parking lot. He said that makes the lot basically contingent on being a parking lot for the building next door, because the building next door has no parking. McCallum said this is a building with one and two-bedroom apartments that could be converted to four- bedroom units according to the current zone to maximize it out more fully. He said that if someone wanted to pave the area between the main building and the carriage house for parking, that could be done, although he would not do it. McCallum said he did not know that he would be the owner of this property forever to prevent someone else from doing something like that later. Weitzel said the Commission is really discussing whether it would allow a building to be here. He said he believes that is already tacitly approved, because the Commission already discussed moving a building there. Weitzel said the question now is whether the Commission would allow a new structure to be built there or would it only accept a compatibly styled existing building to be moved onto that lot. He said that is basically the Commission's precedent; it decided that a building that meets the neighborhood's look and feel, its historic and stylistic qualities, could be moved there. Weitzel said that has been decided, so the only question is whether it would allow a new building to be constructed there. Weitzel said that building would then have to meet the Commission's standards for the look and feel of the neighborhood. Carlson said the Commission does have guidelines for new construction. Weitzel said he did not see any reason why the Commission would disallow an appropriate building. Carlson said he would prefer to see a historic building that was threatened somewhere else moved here, but the Commission has allowed both in the past, and he did not see any reason the Commission wouldn't allow both now. 1135 East Colleae Street. Terdalkar stated that this is an application for approval of a deck at the back of the property, the footprint of which would be 14 feet by 16 feet. He said the applicant has proposed a basic railing design that could be improved. Terdalkar said he would suggest designing a railing of baluster as recommended in section 4.10 of the guidelines. MOTION: Carlson moved to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1135 East College Street. Carlson said the guidelines recommend minimizing this, perhaps by insetting it by at least eight inches. He said it does not appear to be inset on the plan, and he would like to ask the owner if that would be possible, because right now it would be very visible to someone coming from the east side. Terdalkar said the criteria concerns whether it would be visible, and the railing also has to have a proper design. Carlson said that if it is either setback or is lowered closer to the ground, it would be less obtrusive. He said that right now, the plans do not meet the guidelines fully. Baker seconded the motion. Ponto asked, if the deck were inset, would there be any other problems with the plan. Weitzel said that staff recommends that the balustrade look appropriate. Carlson said that minor tinkering could fix those issues, but there are a couple of other issues that can't be discussed without the owner present. Gunn asked if the setback would only be on the west. Carlson said the purpose of the setback would be to hide the deck more from the street. He said it can't be seen at all coming from the other direction. Weitzel said the owner could get the same square footage by going east with the deck and/or south. Carlson said that it could also be wrapped around. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 11, 2006 Page 8 Gunn suggested the Commission approve a deck with an inset and appropriate railing. Carlson said the Commission does not normally approve these types of changes without the owner's input. Weitzel said the Commission could approve this, and if the owner accepts this and it is explained to him carefully, the application would be complete. Terdalkar said he had no communication with the applicant to date. Ponto said the applicant is proposing one and one-half inch square for the baluster. Terdalkar said it is close, but the way it has been designed, the newel posts are stuck to the outside, and it has a flat handrail that could be improved to have a better profile. Weitzel said that, minimally, the posts should rise a little bit above the rail normally, and even if they didn't, perhaps a board on either side of the spindles would give the appearance of a covering. Ponto said he feels this is pretty close. He said it just needs a little work that he would give discretion to staff and the chair to work out. Ponto said he had no major problem with this but said there are just some minor adjustments to be made to be consistent with the guidelines. Brennan said he would like to give the owner the flexibility to do this. He said the owner can always come back before the Commission if he doesn't like the results of working with the chair and staff. Carlson withdrew the motion. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1135 East College Street, subject to staff and the chair's approval of adjustments in the plan to be consistent with the guidelines, including but not limited to the setback and the design of the baluster. Gunn asked if painting is required in a case like this. Terdalkar said it is required to be painted if it is highly visible from the street. Carlson said it is a judgment call in this case. Weitzel said that the cedar would weather to a nature gray in any event. Carlson asked if any pressure treated wood would be visible from the street. Weitzel said that perhaps the back column might be visible. Carlson said that was not significant. He said that the raised parts would be seen from the street. Brennan seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Consideration of the Aoril 27. 2006 Historic Preservation Commission meetina minutes: MOTION: Carlson moved to take up from the table discussion of the April 27, 2006 meeting minutes. Baker seconded the motion. Weitzel said that on page five in the second paragraph, last sentence, Maharry had quoted Weitzel as saying that anything less than 100% is a repair. Weitzel said he did not recall ever saying that, and for clarification, he recalled that he had said that the threshold is 20%. Weitzel said that since there are no amendments to the minutes, the consensus of the Commission is that they are acceptable to file. OTHER: Aloha Chi Omeaa House: Terdalkar said that a representative of the Alpha Chi Omega Sorority is present in the meeting, and would like to make some comments. Cindy said she is the sorority's House Corporation President, and she was just present to observe. She said she knew she would be coming before the Commission in future meetings and wanted to get a feel for the process. Weitzel asked Cindy if there were any plans for the property in the works. Cindy responded that the structural engineers seem to think the building is a loss. She said she is now waiting for a response from the insurance company and then they will decide if they rebuild on the foundation as it is or look forward to something new to be designed. Weitzel stated that there used to be one lot here, which was then subdivided into the 17 North Governor address and the Alpha Chi Omega house lot. He said that one of the two properties was the MacBride Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 11, 2006 Page 9 Pickering house. Cindy said that it was the Alpha Chi Omega house that was MacBride's family house. Weitzel said that Keys thought the other building was the MacBride house. He added that in any case, the Alpha Chi house was so heavily altered, it can't have any architectural or historic significance any more in and of itself. Cindy said that some of the wood floors are still intact, but most everything else had been redone. She added that a historian did a survey and said the house was the Thomas MacBride house. Terdalkar said that Marlys Svendsen did some research on the house and has provided information in a memo to the planning director regarding the history and possible financial sources that can be used for rebuilding. RebuildinQ Funds: Burford said she sent an e-mail solicitation and received two responses so far that raised $450. She said the issue involves raising larger sums. Burford said she is looking at other opportunities. Burford said that she is in the process of preparing a letter to the community. She said she has heard some comments questioning why money could still be needed knowing what the State emergency HRDP funding is. Burford said that if she is going to send a solicitation, she would benefit from having specific dollar numbers and indications regarding specific buildings and the gap between the amount required to rebuild and the insurance adjustments. She said that makes a much stronger argument. Burford said there is a perception that the money in the emergency fund is just for a few houses. Weitzel said that it was settled that the money would go toward 20 homes. Terdalkar said that with the cap that the emergency fund has already, the money would only be sufficient for about 16 houses. He said that the College Block building alone will take $300,000 or more as an estimate. Terdalkar said the insurance gap is huge for that building, as the replacement cost is over one million dollars. Weitzel said the building was insured for about $800,000. Terdalkar said that the Crescent Block building where the Soap Opera is located is also a National Register eligible property. He said it would take another $100,000 or more. Terdalkar said the City is discussing how to allocate the money to prioritize the allocation to those who need it and how to fill in the gap between the insurance proceeds and what is required to do what is right in terms of historic preservation and what is required to keep the historic character. Burford said that is also what the National Trust is about - filling the gap in order to do what is right. Terdalkar said that the HRDP emergency grant is restricted in that only National Register properties or National Register eligible properties can be given that money. He said that therefore the properties that were damaged in the historic districts will be automatically eligible. Terdalkar said that someone will still have to come up with the money for damaged properties in conservation districts, which are outside of the grant. Terdalkar added that there are many properties on Rochester, Hotz and Parsons that suffered damage. He said that very few of those properties would be individually eligible properties. Terdalkar said that the State allocation would therefore not be sufficient for all the damaged properties in the historic or conservation districts. Weitzel said that the City could have easily used one million dollars for damage repair. Terdalkar said that one could prioritize by categories such as owner occupied, contributing structures, key contributing structures, and structures that need repairing of the wood siding or can use fiber cement board siding instead of using vinyl or aluminum siding. He said that if there is not enough funding, there will be a need to prioritize in some way. Burford said that it has to be explained that the City received the seed money from the National Trust and some seed money that is very specific from the State, but the need is far greater. Weitzel said there should be another press release indicating what the money entails, what it's for, how it's going to be spent, and the fact that private contributions from the general public are needed. Terdalkar said he is working with the State grant coordinator and is expecting some response from the State about how the allocation will be done. Weitzel said that it will probably be through the regular HRDP emergency fund application process. He said there would be a review of the building to see if it qualifies Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 11, 2006 Page 10 for funding. Weitzel said that HRDP will then determine how much funding it will give to each property, so everyone will have to apply individually. He said that it is certainly not a no strings attached grant, but the good thing is that it is not an annual competitive thing; once the funds become available July 1st, everyone can apply at once, and then the applications will just be processed. Burford said that with the National Trust money, the Commission is the arbiter for the funds. Burford said that Friends of Historic Preservation has agreed to make the $5,000 match in order to receive the National Trust money. Weitzel said that although the press has reported that $250,000 would be made available, an average house in Iowa City costs about that much. Burford said that what is missing form the story is how much damage was done, such as the fact that the College Block building alone is short $300,000. Weitzel said those figures have only become known since the adjustments have become available. He said that now it is becoming more apparent what the damage is. Weitzel said that he did not believe the City is going to get the FEMA declaration so will not have access to money from that source. Burford asked for the Commission to continue to feed her information about the costs so that the appeal is stronger. Weitzel suggested that Burford work with Terdalkar on a memo. Ponto said that a few people might have the perception that the money may be going to landlords who don't really need it. He suggested that the appeal be broad based. Weitzel said that the Commission would do another press release. Terdalkar said that he is just waiting for particulars from the State. Weitzel said that for now, it can be said that the damage is much worse than most people perceive. He said that one house on Summit Street is worth more than the funds received. Terdalkar stated that the Christian Science Church with the red tiles will need substantial money just to replace those tiles. Terdalkar stated that Marlys Svendsen plans to hold two public meetings in late June, the week of the 26th. He said that the planning associates from Colorado will also be here during that week on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Terdalkar said that Svendsen has requested a meeting with the Commission when the consultants are here, so she would like to know what the availability of the Commission members is during that week. Weitzel suggested Terdalkar get the details to the Commission, and Commission members will respond with their availability. Burford said that on June 27'h, there will be an evening social event with the Clarion people. She said that the entire Commission is invited. Carlson said there would need to be notice of a public meeting if a quorum attends the event. Terdalkar confirmed this. Terdalkar said there were currently no more applications for Commission review. He said that if a storm- related application is submitted, the Commission could hold a meeting next week if a quorum would be available. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcdlminuteslHPCI2006/05-11-06.doc