The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-10-2006 Historic Preservation Commission IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, August 10,2006 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J Harvat Hall 6:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda 3. Items of Consideration A. Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. 714 E College Street 2. 726 Iowa Avenue 3. 728 Grant Street 4. 636 S. Governor 5. 919 E Washington 6. 1016 E College Street B. Minutes for July 13, 2006 and July 27, 2006 meetings 4. Other 5. Adjourn Imva City Historic Preservation Commission City lTall, 4\ 0 r:, \'Cu,hingtun Strcet, Iowa City. L\. 52210 MEMORANDUM Date: August 10, 2006 To: The Historic Preservation Commission From: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Re: 714 East College Street The application was table in the July 27 meeting of the Commission as some of the members sought additional information about the condition of the wood siding and trim of the house. The members are urged to visit the property for a close inspection of the siding. 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 Oty 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 ....9I!.l.~9i?................... I:J Certificate of No Material Effect ~ Certificate of Appropriateness )sf.. Major review I:J Intermediate review I:J Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) I:J Owner ........!if:I::L.~l.~.tf...fi....... ..... ......... ................... ............ Phone............ ..6:.3.3.:-:... .k3..~.j........ ........................ ... ......... Address ........1.~..~...:Iq,k'ft.\...A.K~...~,i;:v.f".1...f!..t~d7...... email................................................................................................ I:J Contractor .....s..&.~f..I.....CkU...rf....................... Address ...........a?.7...7...s:::~::s-. ..~.~.............................. ......... ........~.,';tr.ft(".s..rl.~..~..s........J.;;)..O.................................. Phone.........J.l.~..G..':-/...lf.:.';,3..~.Q;l....... ...~.J1.;;,o:s. J.. .... email................................................................................................ I:J Consultant... .......... .... .... ......... ..... .............. ................................ Address... .... ..... ..... .................. ....... ............................. .............. ..... Phone ... .......... ........ .............. .... ....... ................ .............. ..... ............. email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: I:J Site plan I:J Floor plans I:J Building elevations ~ Photographs I:J Product information I:J Other... ....... .................... ......... .......... ............. ................ If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure. please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property ...............7..?:.~...;J;~~..!!.~.l;(I..~..(.~ Use of property ...................................................................................... Date constructed (if known)............................................................... Historic Designation X This property is a local historic landmark OR I:J This property is located in the: I:J Brown Street Historic District I:J College Green Historic District I:J East College Street Historic District I:J Longfellow Historic District I:J Summit Street Historic District I:J Woodlawn Historic District I:J Clark Street Conservation District I:J College Hill Conservation District I:J Dearborn Street Conservation District I:J Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: I:J Contributing I:J Noncontributing I:J Nonhistoric Project Type I:J Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement. skylights. window opening alterations, new decks. porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) I:J Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) I:J Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch. chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) I:J Construction of new building fB""'" Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance I:J Other ..................... .............. .............. ......... ............. .............. ......... Project description :::::::::::::::::::::(?;::~~;:::::~:~:Ai~;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .............................~~O'....1~.I:f.v.,J,.t..::J~~.........fe.p.Au.....~..:~..~J.~..B.If/:;.~..l~t>...fiic..~A.....f.-:W..~f'!!.n.~.~..dt!.trI<l~ ....$a.J~...J..m..:lcl(.CAJ..~.L:. .."'..~~.klt.~...h.4:*"o.,~..f::I~:.J::..j(.~lrJ-....~..Wfc.~..d~.I,.k:\..EI~ .....J;:..~r..f2&.w~..j).v.\....::.:/~J....rr.I.I.:I:I~...av.x"':.1...d...d/~d/....t::/.a&kdi...IaP.6:.-L.A.:k'i:......s.9.~..~.,a.~lIyaJ ..~..j..I.t:~..~..I1~:~.s..,.w.u..~...~CI?ll,..S{;ul.d.~.::M1r:1.a<ld..f...Jf.f:ldd.1It...~.~~A....29..~.lq7......i~J-(. ...e.l....J::.._.J.)...t......JR,...A/..<~....1..?.~:;.I1.~.,j.bl.,/.".t.c...d:..kl.k..l.s..t.,:u..Je.d.,A...d..:..""-..... ....:1l~~..~~~w.s...f),In,.J...1~.v.~...~&..!-:'!..~.~.~/:hK.l....tI.I.~d:!9....v.P:J.....t.!.If...~~....~k:l:ir~;~;::/q~...,s:I..ff.,..s. .....4...~.~/................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .../IP.':r.I..l...fu.r,:c.R...~l.>...tr!J..H.rhi.....d~t:ffl.~.s.-...I/;a...c.~l:!:t.t:I....~.~..~h.,i"U.l1.~~..~~.4d.s:..f.:."!..~.f':-~hicJ' ;J...ak,j.....IJ..(:~..ih.,$~...t:\!I..JtJ....~..td.f.C.~...s.#.~..(..f:.~.f:l.~..m.9..?!...I..;).:.19.,...Id~.~.!~..kJ...dJ.1.l.~.1 b.:Ji.!~'tt'J'dl:-k:'.. .If..<! JJ~k1. r::K'r.{JlR&.L..taf .f.l~.jW~. .h.~. .J.l{..J:ia;:u.."~f.!: I.. f..?~~w:\.~. fJPrI,{ t!:..c... ..&~::J...:fR. tb.<t,../o1 e. ./..1 Vbo .{. ;f1.t.:,J./..m.C!.JJ...l~Ll\"..J..s:eJJM.Jd.~f.~f^&~:I9..~..(.v.p..sk.<lf..~~:b.e/kd.r.wIIr..M::.~d-.~k'.~rf:~' F~~..1e.':f.t.~1~.W&.#;';l.~...~..m.~..Y..<{lI.~.k:lR1"l.fb!tv.:.kli:\k.f.kxn.~..J.L~.'tM?f:.!l.f~iC.i~..fr.~.~do:V'< W:I( b~ twl kd. :5Q.,,",~ ~ ,'~&.\)~. Materials to be used ..........::r;.~~.e2>.sl.8:..~.....d::r..~..~.~-rl.~...p:lq~lt1kj...:b.(?rv.J.I:.I'.~..1.k."..'~..I'Y::t:~~...-6~.. .........J...l:.t:\~,...:iI--:...v.:t;'/n.J.l...hl.IW<....Lt~."~ln...I.'M..~.~J::A'....;...~~~7.~S~h:l.t.....I1.<Q...~."t.;..~~...{.b..!J~...... ......J..::.4-.K..~(r.&.pl'j..~...+..(J..w..f1.1IM:..4..,...~~...;h..9~r-...~JJ.Q...(.,/.~....b.J.u.w.UM....k.clc.J...~~f.t...l;f..... ....j.:::.~~...!f.o::':~....~..fJ..~....<;:../.9..t&?I...J.~.s;....'(}.~.,,~...,$.~o..................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Exterior appearance changes :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::)i/~:~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65 Staff Report August 10, 2006 Historic Review for 726 Iowa Avenue Classification: Iowa City Historic Landmark District: Classification: College Hill Conservation District Key-Contributing The applicant, Tim Taffe, is requesting approval for alterations on an outbuilding at 726 Iowa Avenue. The property is an Iowa City Historic Landmark as well as a key-contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. The applicant has replaced three windows with vinyl windows on the garage. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Windows Staff Comments The house on the property was built in c. 1840 for William Crum, the editor and publisher of The Iowa Standard. The house was originally built with Greek Revival Style, but has been altered with changes such as construction of a full width porch to replace a central portico, a larger gable dormer to replace a central dormer similar to the tow front dormers. Up to 1899 this was an undivided property with one structure. On the 1906 Sanborn map two more houses and three new outbuildings appear on the property. In a 1912 Sanborn map two outbuildings appear side by side approximately at the location where current garage stands. A footprint similar to the existing structure appears on the 1933 map and its 1970 revision. So the existing structure may have been built sometime after 1920 and before 1933. The one and half story structure has few stylistic features. The structure is sided with wide lap unpainted vertical wood siding and the upper story is separated by a horizontal band board. There are two garage doors on the north side and a small double-hung window placed in the center directly above horizontal band board. On the south fac;:ade there is a human entry door on the first floor with two double-hung windows placed symmetrically above the door. The applicant informs that the windows were damaged, and needed to be replaced. Replacing badly deteriorated windows with new windows that match the type, size, width, trim, use of divided-lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows is allowed, but the guidelines recommend using new wood windows and sashes. Using metal-clad solid wood windows is also acceptable. But installing vinyl or vinyl-clad windows when they were not original to the building is disallowed. 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. <j ~~t~t~~b~~ed ......~.7/~/:~/~~............... ~Certificate of No Material Effect \.la Certificate of Appropriateness [J Major review [J Intermediate review [J Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) [J Owner .........tt.~g.tk~t.:......~h..~.t.!./~....................... Phone ........~ C./.(.J.t.f.4........... ....... ....................................... .... Address .........?~..f......<P..r.fJ..t.!.t......st.:.......................... ... ....... ....... ...!;,.~.If:... .Ct..t:Y.....f../:::.?(..... ..... ...'i.Z.~.'!.9... email................................................................................................ [J Contractor .~f..'d.rbf..f.....C.cfhJ.f..(~.~.b.7l..r.t......... Address ...J:.f,.7..f...fI..\JI.y.. .(f..~.f..:.. ..f..i!. ..../},,~!..l1.!?. .................(,.(:V.~.d.!..'d!;..}....f:.q,.w.(J.....$.~.3..q.7..... Phone.........:?.!.1..~..!t.if..t:...~.~.~..~...................................... email............................................................................................7lt X Consultant ...Ji.f..f:.:.:.i~.'!...~..~...jfp..w.!.,....... Address ... ../I.t.rI......../:;:...{....w..(r1h.i.q.tu.!J...~.t........... ........;;;.fI.!..q,....c(t.t..,I..ld.W.(f........2?::~Yo........... Phone... .....1.f..1...::-..3.'f'..!"..::..$./~.f........................................ .......;.. ... .....q.[F;f...;::... .......... .~..H:..........t:iJ...ip; 'T,;"::'C' (',/;:,.cJ emall.....tJ.......r........II...a..f.t.....!.c::0:::..t..!...~fI.............:..J Application Requirements Attached are the following items: [J Site plan [J Floor plans [J Building elevations [J Photographs ; ~;h:~~.~.~~~7A~~':;p..~..~L~E.!~~.~.t.~.~.~..~............ 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. Property Information Address of PEperty .......7...~..r........(q,.r.tp..t...~f.:..................... ......................~.~.~.....~.\..?J........./...:td...~.~.....f.~.?.'f...O U,. of ProP.rty...Ji.:.!')k..J~~l"....v:..e5..'.~ Date constructed (If known) ......../......1..............2............................. Historic Designation [J This property is a local historic landmark OR 'Q This property is located in the: [J Brown Street Historic District [J College Green Historic District [J East College Street Historic District ~ Longfellow Historic District [J Summit Street Historic District [J Woodlawn Historic District [J Clark Street Conservation District [J College Hill Conservation District [J Dearborn Street Conservation District [J Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ri Contributing [J Noncontributing [J Nonhistoric Project Type " Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights. window opening alterations, new decks. porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) [J Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) [J Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch. chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) [J Construction of new building ~ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not . change its appearance [J Other ........ ............. '" ............. ....... ..... ......... .................. .......... ........ Project description . . . ...R9.p.I..~..~!..f.7J............'f............u!..rN..d............4:..YJ..O'.LbJ.........F.ty...k...........w..J.Y..Jd..q,.Yl5..................W..l..th................ ......i...~.......Cf.J.~..~..t........:f:..jfJ.~...........I.f~..~~......Y!..hJ.t,(......-'1..1u..J:tl.l.'?U..I11...~:......e.0:..f!::.v..(.??..r.I...... /i.!~.!.l:..f:.!d.g:d....~k!.i1..t:......tdi!::!del(/.!,..l!1~.tfhl.r.tJ...Lc...s.L"ffm...m. ....~...../.f........r~......LtfL.................:.............................................................................................................................................................................. ~~lI.7~~..~~..~~{~~.~Lf.1.~...rr!............G:..f.g..J.....ff.:j.~[.I.t!..r.:.......ar..~~..?}..::).....w.(J.,.fI..J.......j~..t{r!..:~.c . {;IcJ ...Ltl.f..k.t.........:u.!s...:::.... ......... .................................... ............................ ......... ..... ....................... ............. .......... ............. ... .......... ... ....... ...... ........ ............. Exterior appearance changes ." ..6J.Of:?'L.~!5..cr.t:......f~r.....i:&......Ct.fPr!:..f,!,.[R.,P(?...?.Yh..e,.n...rd.!1:Jd..1,!.(:i.~ .....a..r..~..........~.l......[.h.l.b:f-.rI..........(?.f.1...........~..!.~./../...I1x.ttli!./..........a...f.....tfl..J...:................................ ppdadm/HP HandbooklApp.p65 J ,- ~ -. ...--- ------- ~~ .---- --- ~ --~ ::::::::::::- e7/2e/2ee6 15:32 31 gr ''2ge2 STUMPF CONST PAGE e2 PROPOSAL Stumpf Construction, L TD 2975 Hwy 22 E P.O. Box 130 Riverside, Iowa 52327 319- 648-3602 (PHONn), 319- 648 2902 (PAX) PROPOSAL SuBMITTED TO: HEATHER SHANK 728 GRANT ST lOW A CITY IA 52240 PHONE 248.9439 DATE 7.20.06 We heroby submit specifications for the following work. LABOR, MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT TO REMOVE FOUR. 2SX 33 WOOD AWNING WINDOW SASH AND INSTAll FOUR NEW, WOOD. PAINTED WHITE, INTERIOR, WHITE METAL CLAD EXTERIOR, "cpELLN' CASEMRNT WINDOWS. BID OF ........................................................................................,. ,.. ... Payment to be made as. follows: Upon eoropletion. All material is guaranteed to be u specified. AnyaJteratio\'l Or devilllon from above sp<<ificatlona requested by ownel' involving extra e04ts w(\1 executed as additional work and will become llIl ex.tra charge over and above the proposal. All ltIfCCtI\onts contingont upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our conb'ot. Owner to elIIT)' fire, tornado md other necessary inaldl\ct. OUr Cf11)loyees lD1l fully covered by Workman's compen..tion inSlltll'lcc. . Subnnltedbyr0(~Mpf / ~ I TERRY STUMPF. PRESIDENT Note: this proposal may be wtthdrawn by us jfnot accepted withl" )0 days. ACCEPTANCE OF PR.OPOSAL - The above prices, specificationa and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of acceptance: SIGNATURE If VOU AGREE TO THIS CONTRACT. PLEASE SIGN, DATE AND RE11JRN ONE COPY. Staff Report August 10, 2006 Historic Review for 728 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Heather Shank, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 728 Grant Street, which is a contributing property the Longfellow Historic District. The applicant intends to replace four awning style wood windows on the house with casement style aluminum clad wood windows. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Windows Staff Comments The house was built in c. 1926 according to the 1995 Iowa Site Inventory Form whereas the City Assessor's records show it as having been built in 1937. This modest one-story structure, some times knows as a "worker's cottage", is built with no specific architectural or stylistic features. Over the years a ramp has been added on the front fa<;ade and the house has been clad with replacement siding, but the house maintains the original shape and fenestration. The applicant is seeking approval to replace four existing wood awning windows with metal-clad wood casement windows with size to match the existing. The guidelines recommend replacing badly deteriorated windows with new windows that match the type, size, width, trim, use of divided-lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows is allowed, using new wood windows and sashes. Metal-clad solid wood windows are also acceptable. Installing modern windows including casement windows is not allowed when they are not original to the building, consistent with the architectural style, or required for egress. Because the house already has modem style-awning-windows, staff believes that using casement style windows is consistent with the guidelines, provided the prome of the replacement window frames and sashes matches the existing windows. 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 ....1-::.:!.5~..(),.k!...................... Ja:: Certificate of No Material Effect o Certificate of Appropriateness o Major review o Intermediate review o Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) o owne...S.a,.\l.d.t:.a..?.....f.?.C1D.d..(tJ...].... Phone..CB..I.~.)...3.ii...8:....~.R:..~..ri.H.................. Address ...b.a.6......S..o......G:o..v.e.f..not. .................TC!.w.Q.,...C..l~.+..ij................................... email................................................................................................ } Cont..actor ....~JJ.......~................................ Add;~s:....3.~?7....~.~3.~~..................... ....~.f....~...........................\l.lf:':..................... Phone..3..~.~:::....~.}.Q..::..~.~1.!.Q....................................... email................................................................................................ o Consultant ................................................................................. Address ................... ....................... .................................. ..... .... ..... Phone............ ......... .............. ........ ...... ........ ..... ....... ............ ............. email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: o Site plan o Floor plans o Building elevations ~ Photographs o Product information o 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. Property Information Address of property ....b..:?b.....S~.......G~.Y.gJ..V).Or Use of property....3.L.nq.1~......S;<;~...r.n...I...l.~....... Date constructed (if known)............................................................... Historic Designation I:l This property is a local historic landmark OR I:l This property is located in the: I:l Brown Street Historic District I:l College Green Historic District I:l East College Street Historic District I:l Longfellow Historic District I:l Summit Street Historic District I:l Woodlawn Historic District I:l Clark Street Conservation District I:l College Hill Conservation District I:l Dearborn Street Conservation District ~ucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: I:l Contributing ~oncontributing I:l Nonhistoric Project Type ';ll{ Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch. reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) I:l Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) I:l Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) I:l Construction of new building I:l Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance I:l Other ... .... ...... ........ ..... .... ..... .............. ......... .... ............. ................... / ~=ll:;:~:::".~ID..?IJ>..!I.>l6.~u)I~~.~..~~~:~.!o'I.J:Y...m. ....\lj!!.~.!c....~~!'.~c"~.T..~.!.<liM,,:>S..,...~....~!:i....w.E:...~....:r.rl.....~~ ~.........~(..Q(.~6......IS......UI......~....~ff1!€........q,...:::Q........12l.~......l:dtilJ.S...{?E......~.~/)..(.~...0A1 .mtM:..;(j)......~........W~......~..A#..&f.........~r.::....P..E...;........tJ;..lCE1).......~......71btr.::.....If1tp....m.... &........iEf.tb.I4!J.......6)......~.......4!~........N9..........tb.?7J?1.?f.~.....VkW.f.:........~.....I..E.......I!!YfR:....7J:terI-c ..W!f>.........{j)......A.?'!E!!..~..........(,.T....~~.......~.......i.,jf).......w..L.7.1I:.........~.......j).r..~. ..$,[.f).f.~.2...,................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ..f1(~~=....7:Jtff.m.....m.'::1>........."-~..7J.:!?i...........OI..J2.!.p.rii...........~.....7l!P&I..v..6f.1Y.t.......&rr€f) .........~...0!..r.N[X),~...........w..~.......YN......()?.~....}......~.TT.i:P...~............~~~.........~... ~.0.J.J7I:Lltfh6l:l..QyI.1t.d.'7:Vlt:!!y.k.fA!.!b.::{])f!.~~ ...l4:e.:rfJ.~c.,......A-s........oJ.~.....tb........~:n........lT:....~f?i!..!:1:>............k:.........~.~:r...../~tI1..il. n vt: ~.......A#i?~........lq=.I.Z...........w.!.~Q~.?......tMb.t!..~......p..~.....~~~.f..o../f!?:;.....~~r.: 11-5 !~~~:j!~~i~~.~2.~~~..#/~ .....~.A.....l)~....lf.~~.....@.v.e!.?r.........~...~.9..(~~....::........~7rf..........~.~:.................................................................. ...kp..r;;:..........v.!.t!!'f.f=..m.....(Y;p~.......7Jw..8.k.....fk.~..,!.fi!IfI!.fty....ffH.l<:l.tl!.l:::....4?f,&gJ MJI/~ ...I/t:;.{J..f..fifJ1!~.....-::tti.....f~r...........No~"11lM...............'l)'~............::.:.;........................................................................ ....N..IfN...........fA.)r:x:i)....~...........~N.?~...............~.........~........~?..~...................................... I Exterior appearance changes ::liM~~;.~G:::::::::::;;;p;;:;::ih;.;;it..~::::::::M.~A;;,::::::$..~~::::::A;;::::::::::;;;i~;~:;,:;;;::::~~p,,~ / .T:.I..r..!.-/....$~....S..l.D./..~...:f.....t......~.1LEf).......M~I.tl-:S."......7:!!!..~.....~J.~........~~..... ..~....7J?~~S:.........f6?.~~...~E...........Q4:I..t;.!.~t.tk:......&~......~H:€.r:-!........E~r.......6>~t.%" ...tr.:.....Wl.~..........&.........MP~.......f!..~':ifI......fl:.ItY~.~9... ....Ytf!i.:.......~~t:........~r.!?.l.rM~........ ..lhk.........Tlf1f........W.~...........~lIN.f)l..........l.:c.....W.(.~.......&..........t1.lr:l.~.'T.S't~......~...7D ..A:.......~ d...pet ~Y::i.....!. r.:.....~!.~........h.P... ..... ..1.I.A:uJ.E:..1P.... .::p:f;Jo..... .~'::!.!!..I,1.#..!.o/...8 e ""<9 ~.........~.......Q.f.?:..........72f:€.................c..........JMlkk;.........k...........6.),gJ).......~.......$.!.P.lt::!.~..~ ~. (. ~............~.~.t.................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................................................................................................................................................................................,......... ppdadm/HP HandbcioklApp.p65 Staff Report August 10, 2006 Historic Review for 636 S. Governor Street District: Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Sandra Randall, is seeking approval for an alteration project carried out at 636 South Governor Street, which is a contributing property the Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District. Approximately two months ago the applicant replaced fourteen wood windows with vinyl windows and recently replaced the existing siding and trim with vinyl siding and vinyl trim. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.5 Siding 4.7 Windows Staff Comments The vernacular house was built in c. 1890 with Victorian stylistic features. Over the years it has been significantly altered and has lost most its original character. A front porch has been removed and replaced with a wood deck, the original roofline and mass has been altered. The original wood siding has been replaced with various materials including masonite, asbestos shingle and T-111 vertical boards. A wood deck with an external staircase was also added at the back of the property. The applicant is seeking approval for the replacement of vinyl windows and vinyl siding. Vinyl windows are not allowed in the guidelines. The guidelines recommend replacing badly deteriorated windows with new windows that match the type, size, width, trim, use of divided-lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows is allowed, using new wood windows and sashes. Metal-clad solid wood windows are also acceptable. Vinyl siding can be used on non-contributing structures in a conservation districts, provided 1) All sources of moisture that have caused damage to the structure are corrected and the damage is repaired prior to the application of the siding. 2) Historic architectural features such as windows trim, brackets, moldings, rafter tails, columns, balusters and similar stylistic details are not covered, removed, cut or otherwise damaged. Unless severely deteriorated, historic wood siding must not be removed. 3) To the extent possible, the synthetic siding appears similar to the original wood siding in exposure, texture and design. 4) Trim boards extend in front of the face of the siding. Because the work has already been completed it is not knows if all the moisture sources have been corrected and if the damaged areas are repaired. According to the applicant many of the windows and their trim was altered prior to the district designation, and the trim that was removed as part of this project was damaged and needed to be removed. In the north and south gables there were small portions of original wood siding remaining with a wide decorative frieze board. The wood siding has been removed but the wood frieze board details remain in place. The new comer boards installed have a profile which is not found on the wood comer boards and would not be appropriate for the house. Because the house has been altered many times, and most of the original details have already been altered, replaced or removed the original fabric of the historic house may have been lost prior to the recent work. 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. For Staff Use: Date submitted ....................................................... o Certificate of No Material Effect ..e:r-C~ificate of Appropriateness ,A Major review o Intermediate review o Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) a own.,'!.J.f~!p.(h.~.),c..~.A"'J. Pho"e.........'/.3..L...~,2.r..~.l.......................t.../).. ......;:.......... Address .....91.r....... .Mor.C....]......C~:f.'.~/z..... ...f.l.v...~. ..:J2..0.g"......C(.... V....h.w;e....................................... email................................................................................................ o Contractor ................................................................................ Address .............. ... .................. .... ..... ..... .... ..... ........................... ..... Phone... .......................... ............. ....................... ........... ............ ...... email................................................................................................ o Consultant ................................................................................. Address '" .......... ............................ ................. ......... ....................... Phone ..................... ........ ... .......... ........... ....................... ..... ............. email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: o Site plan o Floor plans o Building elevations o Photographs o Product information o 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. Property Information Address of property ......9.l.7........t:r......\)l?-.6.bJ.~r.:............... .....................................R.......r..7........................................................ Use of property...........r;.,~..................................................................... Date constructed (if known)............................................................... Historic Designation o This property is a local historic landmark OR ~his property is located in the: o Brown Street Historic District o College Green Historic District o East College Street Historic District o Longfellow Historic District o Summit Street Historic District o Woodlawn Historic District o .--.clark Street Conservation District ~ College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District o Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District W~n the district, this property is classified as: ,,z( Contributing o Noncontributing o Nonhistoric Project Type o Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding andwindow replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) o Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) o Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) o Construction of new building o Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. l1 ~:::;.:~.I'~;~.~{/.n~~.0:((,jlt.~42.Q".Lff ~ .~l ~cS &.-~~ .5 '.....j 3 proj~t description I .. . ....,!f.>.uu::i.6.k:?..il!..,),,!,!?.,J....~~o<l.:..o..J..'W'~gtjr.~6~:5. ...... ... .... Q.h.!.r:--J'h-..~... ... ....... .... .... ... ... ............ ... .......... ............. ............. ..... ........ .......... ... .... ...... ..... ....... ... ... ..... ... .... ....... ... .............. .... .... ... ........... .... ... ...... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................;......................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Materials to be used . .............E.~.~.U.~.5.S........~.~.,..rv.L.j................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............. ............. ....................... ....................... .................. ........... .......... .... ....... .... ........... ......... .... .......... .............. ............ ...~.. .......... ............... ............. ........... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Exterior appearance changes 1. ..................s..b~.!:..........r.o..(?l:.......k..i.~.....(?.;"S::d.....~..~Y.::........................................................... ................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......,.................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ppdadm/HP HandbooklApp.p65 Staff Report August 10, 2006 Historic Review for 919 E. Washington Street District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, 4A Properties LC, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 919 East Washington Street, which is a contributing property the College Hill Conservation District. the applicant intends to replace the metal roof with asphalt shingle roof. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.4 Mass and Roofline Staff Comments The vernacular house was built in c. 1900 with Queen Anne stylistic features. Over the years it has been altered- replacement siding, remodeled porch and a second story addition above the porch has been added. The house is a 'twin' to the house at 923 East Washington Street. The general form of this house is exists despite the alterations. The metal roof is a rare a decorative pattern and is fmished with crest fmials. The applicant has not provided detailed information about the roof damage, and it is not evident that the roof is damaged beyond repair from the photographs submitted. Staff believes that this metal roof is unique, and if it is not deteriorated, should be repaired and maintained. 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. Applicant Information (Ple~se check primary contact person) J Owner ..!Ve.d......~Q.J........................................... Phone.....~.1..9......~6.k......I'.~9....................................... Add I'ess ../.().l.6......eA~t....~1lf!J.e.....5f................. ~.;;:~;;:::::l1.:i.:W:~:~J..e::~:~L::~;;,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ Contr''1ctor ....l3c:J.tlY.1....A.r.O..9.l.J............................. A,dd l.esJJjQY....fA~r.($..l.rl~......gJ.................................. ....A..'.Y.,f.~~,I.&.~...:rA..................5131:1-:................. Phone ....3.\.~......,.Lj.~.......2C..l~........................................ . 7 c' .;111.......................:........................................................................ o C I",itant .............=~.:........................................................... Ar- Att:l 0 0 0 lY'" ! [j(" . 0 If tl" a s: sit If pip sui' t Pre.. se.: l' I '-"-'':,5 .......................................................................................... r' ~ '(-' i\ I~equirements " the following items: 1 ('I' \/:1tions . 'rmation j pr0ject entails an addition, a new structure or :11 to an existing structure, please submit a ,. building elevations and photographs. iC ect is rt minor alteration to a structure, Ci',.;wings and photographs to sufficiently de- f the project. i.scription of the proposed project on the <; application. ~~t:~b~~ .Qtf.~/~. o ~ertificate of No Material Effect \..ff ~ificate of Appropriateness =-'tJ Major review o Intermediate review o Minor review Property Information Address of property ....I.QI.6...tAf.f.....a.ll~f...J:t.............. .......7owlll....CA.1J..,......................................................................... Use of property ............h.O'I!!1.~....................................................... Date constructed (if known).........J8..9s::::..l1.O':I......?......... Historic Designation o This property is a local historic landmark OR o This property is located in the: r:J Brown Street Historic District a"College Green Historic District o East College Street Historic District o Longfellow Historic District o Summit Street Historic District o Woodlawn Historic District o Clark Street Conservation District o College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District o Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: o Contributing o Noncontributing o Nonhistoric Project Type ~ Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) o Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) o Dem()lition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch. chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) o Cons~ruction of new building o Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance o Other .............................................................................................. r . :. don :::::::: ::R~~.~~~:f::..:7)::::~:~~d~~:~:::::~:~::::::~:~t.h:::;~~:::~r:::~~~;~~~~:::b~~~:~::::+;;:::~:::::::::::: ......... .(".tZ.p\.Qt.e.d......lo.y.......Q.............2.....CQC....3.CA.CQ.g.~.....d.OO.C.............................................................................................. :~:~I~I~~~~~~j~~~i~~~~~~~~f.~~~~~J~:i1;~:~~~~:::~~t ... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .. ...,......................................................................................................................................................................................... .... ....................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................. t6 'I 'f used ........ :I:ns.v.!Q-kJ...sffe.I...doo.r::......(l...c.a..c..7..flO.aJj:')...................................................................................................... ........WO.O.d....+r.:.l.m......................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ...IJo~k~.....b~;.;;:d;.~;;.;;;;fho;&;~~lwi.;;d;.:4s:l~;;~:;:;;~;k:~::J.f:k:i. .. .... .... .......................................................................................................................................................a....d.o.t>.c).......................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. .... ............ ............................................................................................................................................................................. E .':wce changes :..3.....wl~.d~~s....Ch~~;1:b.....~.....J.~~b.kd~;;,j.~:::d.~~c................:........:::......:...::::::.:.. :...1 . .do~'/~..g~;;;.j~:::d~.~.;.::d..~~J:~:,..:~::.:.2:.:~r;Xy::1~:;~::.:d.~;:rs.:.::::::::::::::. ........................................................................................................................................................................................ . .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ..-.............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65 '0 "< :J ~ \J ~ ~ \)0 ..j cJ.~ 3~ Q ~'- ~ ~?~ '(" ~\ :.::> . ~~ ~ Cl ~ I i - ~ 1 ~ ~ 7 / / / - ~~ "". ,~ "1"':: I ' - [- ~ ~) -.t -> -, Q '" l' ~ \.L \.l > -....-.---- \- t- :$ I- I I I IL.._ , I K 3 ~ 1~ ,.- I ~~ I I. I ~~I 1 ' \. ~\L_ ~-- I ct.-.\- 'l< I \ _____, \.Q 1 . _ _ -<.. ! I~~ l I . I ~ '6 i ,I . Q I L - ---. 1 . ....... ...!.. D '-....i - -i \'- bi Staff Report August 10, 2006 Historic Review for 1016 E. College Street District: East College Historic District Classification: Key-Contributing The applicant, Ned Wood, is seeking approval for a proposed alteration project at 1016 East College Street, which is a key-contributing property in the East College Street Historic District. The applicant intends to remove three double hung windows and install a two-car garage door on the north fa<;ade of the carriage house on the property. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Windows 4.8 Doors Staff Comments The house on the property was built in c. 1900-5 by builder/ architect F. X. Freyder. Freyder was one of the proprietors of the architectural firm that was responsible for the construction of the First Methodist Church and the Summit Street Apartment Building among others. This Cottage Style house is adorned with Queen Style details. It has a fairly complex and unique roofline, with flared eave lines. To the rear of the house is a large one and a half story carriage house (built in 1930 according to the City Assessor's records). The hipped roof structure has four dormers similar to but simpler than those on the main house. The fenestration on the carriage house includes various types of doors, windows and other utilitarian openings. On the south fa<;ade of the carriage house there are two large door openings, with large barn style doors. On the north fa<;ade there are three double-hung windows, a small clear story window and a pedestrian entry door. All the openings on the structure have divided lights. The trim on the carriage house matches the trim on the house. The applicant intends to remove three original double-hung windows to install a steel two-car garage door on the north fa<;ade and use the alley to access the carriage house. Currently vehicles can access the carriage house via a driveway and openings on the south side. The applicant also intends to install a barn style top-hung sliding door on the south-west opening, similar to the existing door on the south-east side; however, one of the panels of this barn style door will have a pedestrian entry door. With the proposed changes the carriage house will have three large door openings and will result in significantly altering the fairly intact structure and loss of the original character of this unique carriage house. Staff recommends improving the existing drive way from Court Street and maintaining the vehicular access from the south side. Ideally, the south-west door should be restored to match the exiting top-hung barn-style sliding door. This would maintain and improve the condition of the unique structure and would not compromise the use of the structure. If the Commission is presented with evidence that removing the windows and installing the door is justified to make it functional for modem uses, then staff recommends that alterations be done in such a way that the impact is minimal and alternatively closing one of the door openings on the south fa<;ade and installing the removed windows in its place should be considered. Staff also believes that the door on the east side should be sufficient as a pedestrian access door and a new door within the original barn style door is not required. Considering the significance of the property and the carriage house, regardless of the alternative approved, staff recommends that the new garage door should mimic the existing barn style door in materials, appearance, and proportions particularly the height and the lintel level, and should match the trim on the structure. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 13, 2006 HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL 11I""'.'1,_., '" ",' ," "I,,: " i!. ,!" i , , I, MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swain, Tim Toomey, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Bernhardt, Jim Buxton, Karen Daubenberger, Kurt Dyer, Scott Kading, Thane Kading, John Livingston, John Roffman CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm. Public discussion of anvthina not on the aaenda: No items for were presented for discussion. Items for consideration (vote reauired) A. Certificate of Appropriateness 828 E. Washington Street Terdalkar reported this structure was damaged in the April tornado. The applicants are seeking approval to demolish it. Plans for the new structure are not included, though they are required per the commission's guidelines. A letter from the applicants and a report from the structural designers are included in the packet. City staff recommends approval with the condition that a timeline for the demolition and proposed construction will be submitted as soon as available. Parker said when the letter was written originally, she believed the asbestos removal would be done very soon. However, she found out that electricity and water are needed for the asbestos removal. The water is now on and temporary electricity will be turned on soon. However, the estimate is one week per floor for the asbestos removal, so it will be mid-August before that phase will be complete. That means it will be the end of August before the building can be demolished. They would like to have an architect hired 'in August, put a bid out for the new building in spring 2007, and complete construction in summer 2008. Weitzel asked what sort of structure they are planning to build. Parker said they are looking for something of a similar size to the current structure, about 14K square feet. They have not yet considered what it would look like. Weitzel noted the commission's guidelines require applicants to submit a plan for commission approval, which gives the commission an idea what the rebuild plan is. However, they could move forward with assurance that a plan will be submitted for approval at a later date. Also, the commission could grant a special waiver due to the fact that this is from storm damage and the structure presents a safety hazard. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve demolition, with waiver of plan requirement due to current health and safety hazard caused by severe storm damage. Demolition in this instance is probably safer than letting it stand. Future plans should be submitted and approved by the commission at a later date. Toomey seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Baker arrived at this point. 18 South Governor Street Terdalkar reported that this is a contributing structure the applicant would like to do a partial demolition to portions of the house, including an enclosed porch and foundation, and then construct a new foundation with a walk-out basement on the north side of the structure. They have removed most of the basement windows and are not proposing to reinstall as before. A revised plan has been submitted, which indicates only two windows will be installed on the north, as well as an entry door. The porch structure will be rebuilt as before. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 2 Roffman said Terdalkar summed up the project well and he does not have anything further to add. He said he could answer any additional questions. Carlson asked what the foundation originally looked like before the storm. Roffman said the foundation was originally made of soft red brick approximately four feet high with four feet of concrete block on top of that. Part of the brick and the entire concrete block section was exposed on the north side. Weitzel asked if it was a full basement wall. Roffman said it was seven feet tall. Carlson asked how high the proposal would be. Roffman said the structure would be the same height, but the foundation would be deeper, at nine feet. Weitzel asked what windows and doors were in the foundation before. Roffman said there was a cellar door with a hatch on the east wall, and small basement sash on the east wall. Two or three small basement sash on the north wall, and a couple basement sash underneath the porch on the west. Gunn asked whether the windows were in the block or the brick. Roffman said they were in the block, sitting on top of the brick. Weitzel asked for confirmation that the proposal plans for siding on the new wall. Roffman said yes, on the north side, which continues from the upper floors. Weitzel asked whether the wall could be done in brick. Roffman said doing brick would make it more complicated for blocking with the house raising company, and would not be as warm. The other three walls made of concrete will be mostly buried. Toomey said the design from the picture in the packet appeared out of balance. He said the windows in the new area should be single windows that match the ones above. Also, poured concrete will change the appearance. He would prefer either red brick facing or stone blocks. Roffman asked if he meant the split- faced block. Toomey said yes. Weitzel said the rusticated cast ones, not the broken ones. Weitzel noted there is a more recent proposal, which includes the corner boards and a balanced symmetry. He asked if there would be any retaining walls required. Roffman said yes. Weitzel asked the commission members if they want to require use of rusticated block or masonry wall. Michaud said contrasting walls that differentiate between the original two-story building and the new foundation would be appropriate. She suggested putting insulation inside to help achieve this. Weitzel asked if the porch would be rebuilt taller than before. Roffman said it would be the same height as the original, which is why retaining walls are needed to maintain ground level. Bernhardt said in his view, having siding all the way down looks more appropriate than brick. Terdalkar noted that would not have been the way a house like this would have been originally built. Toomey said there are other houses with the same sort of foundation exposure, and they have masonry at that level. Michaud said there is typically delineation between the main house and the lower foundation level, usually a difference in exterior material between the two. Weitzel said the insulation could be on the inside of the concrete walls. Roffman said the insulation would have to be in order to meet energy code for the other three walls anyway. Michaud asked whether the fire escape ladder would need to be extended in order to comply with fire code. Roffman said he thought so. Weitzel noted though that's a good question, fire code is not within the parlance of the commission. Terdalkar asked if Bernhardt had considered reinstalling a door on the back side where the cellar door once was, and installing egress windows instead. Then the north wall would not be so exposed. Roffman said the door from before was not compliant on rise and run of the stairs, and would need an outdoor cover. This is an even bigger problem since the foundation is deeper than before. In order to get the proper rise and run, the stairs would extend about 13 feet into the backyard. Michaud asked if the alley would be in the way. Bernhardt said there is a four-foot retaining wall with a parking lot behind it, so that would make the parking lot smaller. Roffman said there is no alley, rather an easement with the Washington Street residents allows access. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 3 Toomey asked for confirmation that it was originally a brick foundation. Roffman said yes, the lower four feet were soft red brick. Michaud asked for confirmation that the rusticated stone looks like limestone. Weitzel said it looks like turn-of-the-century house foundations. They are a concrete block with one side rusticated to look like the old-world stone. Michaud said that would be appropriate, and using brick is not necessary if the block is more functional. Toomey said there is also a two-inch veneer that can be applied around the rest of the base. Roffman asked if it is stone or brick. Toomey said it is a simulated stone made of concrete block. It is a solid piece that is mortared directly to the foundation, though it would be good to have a ledge to sit on. If the foundation is poured, just leave an inch ledge on the top three feet for it to sit on. Michaud asked if there is an example of this material on the web for the commission members to see. Toomey said he could bring some in. Roffman asked how large the pieces are. Toomey said they are standard block size. He used it to line an old coal chute and it matched the stone wall very well. Roffman asked for clarification on whether the material is stone or concrete block. Toomey said it is concrete block that is textured to look like stone. Toomey noted using the veneer would also solve the insulation problem. It would look like the house was built with it originally, but the insulation could be behind it. The smooth concrete facing would not look appropriate. Weitzel said a motion is needed to address the porch being rebuilt as stated, the door location, and the exposed exterior surfaces of the foundation wall. Swaim asked for confirmation that the veneer looks like cement block simulating stone, rather than just looking like stone. Toomey said yes. Weitzel said the material is intended to simulate a sandstone exterior from houses built in the 1920's. The difference is that instead of being a solid block, it is just a thin veneer. Michaud asked if the porches would be put back with the same balustrade as before. Weitzel said that specification could be included in the motion. Roffman said they are currently painted aluminized ones. Carlson noted the windows in the plan are vinyl, which are not allowable. Roffman said the existing windows are replacements. They are double-hung, but all vinyl clad. The ones in the attic and one on the front are aluminum clad, but all the others are maintenance-free sash that have been replaced with jamb liners. The frame and white trim is the same. Weitzel said the guidelines allow for aluminum clad or wood. The vinyl windows were likely installed before the historic district went into effect. Roffman asked what is allowable for the door. Weitzel said the commission has allowed fiberglass doors for the basement level before. Fiberglass has also been allowed for windows because it is paintable. Toomey asked if there were any concerns about the balance of the new windows. Weitzel agreed that they are large. Carlson said they would not be visible except from the north. Roffman said the windows are similar to the front. Weitzel said window balance is typically evaluated based on the elevation they on rather than elsewhere on the structure. Carlson said the prominent windows would typically be on the first level of a house rather than the lower level with a side basement entrance. Roffman said that the front of the house has a wide variety of window sizes, and various sizes elsewhere on the structure, which indicates the original builders were looking for function and light. Toomey said he would like the work to be done in such a way that the newer construction would be indistinguishable from the original. Roffman said he agreed that was not how the house was originally built, but the building has been changed over the years and the new plans are not out of line with theO house as it currently exists. Terdalkar said ideally the newer work would be in line with the original construction, rather than aggravating the changes that were done before the historic district went into effect. Michaud said that full-sized windows at the sidewalk level is not very private. Perhaps a shorter window would be better. This lookS like a hotel, with large windows at the sidewalk level. She noted that one Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 4 window was removed from the updated plan, but asked if they are shorter. Roffman said they are the same height as the ones in the floors above, and lined up. Terdalkar asked if the door is required, as the basement level can be accessed from inside the house. Roffman said the door is not required, since the windows would be egress. Toomey said he would prefer to see three individual windows or two windows with a door. The door does not bother him. Swaim says this type of house was generally not three stories, so having single windows on the lower level might give it a sense of verticality that was not originally intended. The double windows in a different kind of material would help relieve that concern. Toomey agreed. Weitzel said he does not have a problem with the recent design with the double windows, and he is not concerned about the door. Weitzel asked if this should be one motion or multiple votes. Swaim said there seems to be consensus on the rusticated concrete. Weitzel said there appears to be consensus on the porch. Swaim asked if the porch would be original to what was there before the storm, or more similar to the original construction. Weitzel said the porch was not damaged in the storm, so it would just be a matter of dismantling and then reconstructing the current porch with the original materials. Roffman agreed. MOTION: Ponto moved approve to replace the porches as they previously existed, to cover the exposed portions of the foundation with either brick or rusticated cement block veneer, and install as shown in most recent plan two pairs of double-hung windows on the north elevation basement level that are either wood, metal clad, or fiberglass, a fiberglass door, and trim to match existing. Swaim seconded. Toomey asked for confirmation that the motion is for the two windows in the recent drawing. Ponto said yes, because it is a different material on the foundation. Also the basement will need more light. Gunn asked for confirmation that the motion was to cover all exposed surfaces of the foundation with rusticated block or brick. The guidelines are clear that replacement foundations should look like masonry. Ponto said his motion was to also cover the exposed portions of the foundation all the way around the house. Weitzel said the porch has skirting, so covering that portion is not needed. Gunn noted the masonry trim on the foundation should not be trimmed to match siding trim. Something like a brick molder or inset into the masonry would be more appropriate. Roffman confirmed that this type of trim would have an approximate two-inch profile. Gunn said yes. Weitzel said the motion should indicate trim is appropriate to historic masonry. Gunn said the door does not have to be fiberglass. It could also be wood or painted metal panel. Weitzel agreed any door that has the same look would be fine. Roffman said they have a fiberglass door. Carlson said also if the decision is made to use brick for the foundation, it should be brick that appears similar to what was used before. Ponto agreed to amend the motion to include a specification about historic brick and trim to match existing. Terdalkar asked if there was any possibility of reinstalling salvaged windows on the south and east sides. Roffman said there is a lot of runoff from the severe hill on the south side with dirt on all other sides of the house. Terdalkar asked since the site has been excavated if it would be possible to regrade the yard. Roffman said the height of the house and yard will not be changed. The foundation will be deeper, but the yard out away from the house is the same as before. There are retaining walls to the south and east. Weitzel asked if the commission members whether the windows should be reinstalled or not, and suggested addressing that in a separate motion if necessary. Toomey asked for confirmation that the motion specified the foundation should be brick or rusticated block on all exposed surfaces. Weitzel said yes. Roffman asked for confirmation that the retaining walls do not need to match the exposed foundation surface. Weitzel said yes, something different for those is fine. The retaining walls should not look like a foundation. Weitzel confirmed that the motion is to have the porch rebuilt as before at same height, foundation exposed surfaces covered by either historic brick or rusticated block. On the north elevation, two double- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 5 hung windows aligned with windows above and a central door as specified on most recent illustration, along with trim to match historic masonry. Ponto noted he specified wood, metal-clad wood, or fiberglass windows. Weitzel asked if the commission would like to address the basement windows. Gunn said since there is a large porch in the front and the south has a high grade, the only place left to put windows is the east. He said he is not very concerned about that side of the building. If any additional windows are required, they should only be needed on the east side. Weitzel said it would be within the commission's purview to require additional windows. Ponto said he does not feel strongly about additional windows. Toomey said he would suggest they be added, but would not require them. Weitzel said the motion could be amended to suggest installation of additional historically-accurate basement windows on the east elevation. MOTION: Ponto moved to amend the motion to include a recommendation to install additional historically accurate basement windows on the east elevation. Toomey seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 730 N. Linn Street Terdalkar reported this application was tabled at the last meeting. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 2-car garage with upper apartment. New plans and sketches have been provided. The new proposal dimensions are 26 feet by 34 feet, which is slightly larger than the previous proposal. Weitzel said the commission asked that the applicant work with staff to create a proposal that would be acceptable. A new plan has been submitted. He noted that a motion is needed to take the discussion up from the table. MOTION: Carlson moved to take the discussion of 730 North Linn Street up from the table. Swaim seconded and the motion was taken up from the table. Weitzel said he sent suggestions to Terdalkar for alternatives to the original design, which might be more appropriate to the original structure of the house. Terdalkar displayed the suggestions for the commission members. Weitzel said if the commission finds the new design acceptable, then that can be discussed, but he does not think the new design appears to be greatly different from original proposal. He said the building appears more Colonial than Queen Anne to him. Toomey said he investigated Queen Anne and carriage house designs, and they looked very similar to the proposal, including the cupola. Weitzel said there are several existing carriage houses in the area that do not have cupolas. Toomey said there is one on Linn Street with the Dutch sort of hip roof. However, the roof hip destroys any living space. Weitzel said that would also depend on the wall height. Toomey said he found several designs that looked very similar except for the dormers. Swaim said there is one like this on Woodlawn. Weitzel said there is one on Summit, some on Burlington and Court, and in the north area, though in different forms. Toomey said some are taller than the current building code allows, which is 20 feet at the midpoint of the roof. Terdalkar displayed several photos of area carriage houses. Weitzel said he is also concerned about the plan being off the shelf. Terdalkar said the issue with that is the applicant was having difficulty getting the plan drawn up inexpensively. He said he checked with Housing Inspections, and the applicant is not required to bring professional drawings. As long as dimensions are included, hand-drawn sketches are acceptable. T. Kading said they would be more comfortable working with a contractor if they knew what the building looked like specifically beforehand. They would like to have specific details about what the building will look like and whether the apartment will have functional space, and they would prefer not to have to hire an architect to draw up plans. The building cannot be traditional Queen Anne and still have functional living space in the apartment due to the steeply pitched roof. Terdalkar asked for confirmation from the applicant that altering the plan would be difficult. T. Kading said they had planned to purchase plans already done and give them to the contractor. They would rather not have to put in the additional expense to work with an architect. Toomey said the applicant could submit Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 6 plans from the printout by adding dimensions. T. Kading said there are things externally or decoratively that can be changed easily, but are not familiar enough with the process to know what is involved with making structural changes. Weitzel said the plan would have to start out more square. Carlson said anything that is simple and non- Colonial would be fine. Weitzel agreed that a plan that is simpler and more Victorian would be acceptable. Toomey said the structure is limited due to height. Weitzel said the gambrel is not appropriate, and it would have to look strange to pass code. The commission is required to approve a building to match the area design, and the commission has no control over zoning requirements. Gunn asked Weitzel what concerns he has about the design. Weitzel said if the other commission members think the design is acceptable, then the discussion can move on. He said he thought the design is too Colonial in character. T. Kading said at the last meeting, the commission said it did not matter how many dormers there are. She tried to find a design that did not have the big dormer on the back, since the commission expressed concerns about the wide dormer on the first plan. The new plan has a wider structure than before to compensate for the lost square footage in the apartment space. Gunn asked Weitzel what he thinks is Colonial about the design. Weitzel the dormers look very Georgian, as well as the cupola and the six over six window style. Carlson said the cupola could be Queen Anne. Michaud asked if it is important to have lights in the upper corners of the garage doors. Weitzel said the commission does not regulate doors, and he is not concerned about the doors. Weitzel said if the other commission members think the current plan is good, then the discussion can end and a vote taken. He was expressing his opinion about the revised plan, but no one has expressed a strong differing opinion except Toomey, so it would seem there is some indecision that needs to be discussed. Michaud asked about the plan being displayed on the computer. Weitzel said that plan is fine. It was what Terdalkar proposed as an alternative. Michaud said if the floor plan for that proposal is workable, she would agree to that proposal. MOTION: Gunn moved to accept revised application as submitted with condition to remove cupola and divided windows. Carlson asked also for removal of Colonial lamps. Gunn agreed. There being no second, the motion died. T. Kading said the windows would look like the ones currently on the house, doubled sashed without the multiple small panes. Terdalkar asked if the applicant plans to put another door in on the back side. T. Kading said yes. Terdalkar said it should be noted there would be another door on the north elevation. Weitzel said he would be okay with the cupola, though Victorian cupolas looked different. T. Kading said she does not want the cupola anyway. Toomey said the front door pediment does not seem appropriate. Ponto said they are very common. Toomey said they usually looked more classical. Weitzel said he thinks the pediment is fine as is, and having a more classical look would be more Colonial. Toomey asked the applicant if they are willing to remove the pediment. T. Kading said they would be willing to if the commission requests it, though she thinks it looks fine. Carlson said it does not seem possible to make the current design totally compatible with the house, and efforts have been made to find a design that would fit. He said stripping the Colonial elements from the current structure would be easy and reasonable. Gunn suggested combining the three dormers into one. He asked how that would work with the floor plan. Weitzel said the dormer and window in the sleeping area would be gone, which would reduce both space and light. Gunn asked about putting a dormer on the other side as well. Carlson said it might be difficult to ask the contractor to modify the plans from three to one dormer. Weitzel said building one dormer would be simpler than three smaller ones. Gunn said that moves away from the design, and the design might start looking too clunky so there is enough square footage inside. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 7 Weitzel said he would find a structure with one dormer more acceptable than three. Carlson agreed. Weitzel said that would look less Georgian. Michaud asked for clarification on what that would do to the floor space inside. Weitzel said a window would be lost in the sleeping area, but the gain would be a lot of floor space. T. Kading said they would like to have this as easy as possible, and not have the contractor make too many modifications. Weitzel explained the modifications based on the model on the computer. Gunn asked if staff would be able to draw up modified plans. Terdalkar said he does have a plan based on the model already created, and he showed it to the applicants. S. Kading said the problem is that the plans they submitted are already created and can easily be purchased and given to a contractor. Weitzel said Terdalkar could create the plans. T. Kading asked for confirmation that Terdalkar's plans would include details such as electrical placement. Terdalkar said those details are not needed. Weitzel said the contractor does not need plans for electricity. Gunn said the electricity needs to meet code. Weitzel said changing the dormers would not change the functional parts of the plan. Gunn asked for confirmation that electricity and plumbing plans do not need to be submitted for habitable space. Weitzel and Terdalkar said that is correct. Weitzel said the code is very specific about what is needed. T. Kading said she thought more detail was needed for submission to the city. Weitzel said the plumbing and electrical diagrams could be used from the plans already submitted. Modifying the dormers should not change any of that. Toomey said doing one dormer would give the space more light and floor space. T. Kading said they preferred not to have a matching dormer on the other side, for reasons of privacy in the house if they rent the space out. Weitzel said a matching dormer isn't needed, but the structure would look better. He suggested putting frosted windows in on one side. Gunn said the little dormers are just little head spaces. Weitzel said they are good for closets. Gunn said when they are wider, that gives more head space. S. Kading said he was confused about what the commission is looking for. At the previous meeting, the number of dormers in the structure was not a concern, so they spent time looking for a plan with a straight roofline, which seemed to be what the commission was looking for. Weitzel said he asked that the applicants work with Terdalkar to come to a solution. S. Kading said the carriage house styles in town usually do not match the house. T. Kading asked if having matched dormers on both sides is required. S. Kading said the alternate plan currently being displayed on the computer is fine with him. He just would like to have complete plans to submit to the city and the contractor. Weitzel said Terdalkar could turn the current 3D plan into floor plans. It would have all the doors, walls, and windows. It would not have electrical and plumbing, but he does not think that will be required. If the applicants purchased plans, that information would be included and would not need very much revision. There should not be much plumbing or electricity running into the dormers. Weitzel said most of the utilities would come up through the middle wall because they should not be on exterior walls. The except in this case might be the bathroom. According to the floor plan, having a back dormer does not make sense because of the closet space planned for that area. Ponto said one dormer makes sense to him. T. Kading said one dormer would be good. S. Kading agreed. Weitzel said having one dormer would be less complex to build, and make the roof easier to shingle. Gunn said it would feel larger inside as well. Toomey said it should be less expensive to do as well. Carlson said the plan does not specify the exterior and the gable profile. He asked for confirmation that it will be sided all the way up and down, with a window on the second floor. He said he would prefer more detail in those areas. T. Kading said it would be siding. S. Kading confirmed that the new plan would be the same as the ones already submitted, except with only one dormer. Gunn asked if the pediment over the door would be included. Terdalkar said the trim would need to match eaves and overhang of the house, which the sketch indicates. He said the 3D model is a 12' x 12' pitch building, which may even be higher than the house. Weitzel said the pitch does not have to match the house. It should be based on the height and footprint of the building. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 8 Terdalkar said the maximum peak height is 26 feet in the submitted plans, which the revised plan matches. Weitzel said the profile is the same between the two except for the dormers. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve the basic plan presented regarding the footprint, height, and pitch of the roof, with the exception of one dormer versus three, as drawn up by staff. The plan should include fiber cement board siding with trim to match the house, double hung wood or metal clad windows, with lights to match the house. Optional pediment and cupola. Gunn asked to include that the finalized plans need to be acceptable to the applicant. Ponto agreed. Gunn seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Other Buxton said he wants to discuss work for the property at 946 Iowa Avenue to alter the basement of the house. Buxton said they are doing renovations because of tornado damage. The columns will be replaced, and the whole house will be resided with wood instead of the cement fiberboard discussed at the last meeting. Buxton said the south wall under the front deck has collapsed. It was a double brick masonry wall, and the mortar holding the bricks together disintegrated. It is urgent to get a new foundation under the building, and he has made arrangements to have a poured foundation. Right now it has three rows of blocks exposed, and he can do an inset with block facade that appears to the public. The elevation will not be raised and no windows will be removed. However, there are two egress windows on the west elevation they would like to combine into one underneath the above bedroom window. Buxton said they would like the new foundation to incorporate the kitchen addition. Right now the concrete block under the kitchen addition is smooth, so does not match the rest of the house. They would like to change the appearance of the block under the kitchen, and add a window below it on the north elevation. He does not want to wait until the next meeting to discuss the foundation. He has let the tenants know the house will not be ready on August 1, in order to finish the renovations. Weitzel asked if a wall would be run along the baseline of the house, in addition to the extension below the kitchen. Buxton said no, they plan to span it with a steel beam. There would be three main beams placed under the main supports of the house going north to south, as well as the beam to make up the foundation under the addition. There will also be footing walls underneath the beams as well. Buxton said he would like preliminary approval to do the work, and run any final details through Terdalkar, in order to begin work on the foundation as soon as possible. Weitzel asked if they plan to reuse the old windows, or put in replacements. Dyer said they would like to put in crank out casements for one egress, with the rest double hung. Buxton said the egress window should probably be the same width as the window above it. Weitzel agreed. Weitzel asked if there would be any other basement windows they would remove. Buxton said no, but the door would also be removed. The door was not original. Dyer said there is a small window to the north that they plan to replace. They would like to add a window under the addition as well. Right now the area below the addition is a crawlspace, but the new foundation would incorporate that area and would need light. Gunn asked how this would proceed, since it is not on the agenda. Terdalkar said informal consensus could be given to change the foundation. Gunn said in terms of the commission guidelines, this item is not on the agenda so there is no public notification and a certificate cannot be issued, so the work could not be proceed. Buxton said his main concern is to get a new foundation under the house as soon as possible. Gunn asked when Buxton plans to begin the work. Buxton said it might not happen for 10 days to two weeks because of scheduling issues with the house moving company. Weitzel said 24-hour notice is still needed for an emergency meeting, so the commission cannot take action at the moment. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 9 Weitzel said since the plan is to maintain the appearance, approval could be given as a certificate of no material effect. Terdalkar said there is a change due to the door removal and making two windows into one. Buxton said he thinks the door was added. Carlson asked for confirmation that the door was not original. Dyer said no, the door leads to the kitchen, which is an addition. Terdalkar asked for confirmation that a permit will be needed to demolish the foundation. Dyer said HIS told him that a permit is not needed for demolition but he needs a permit for new foundation. Terdalkar said he thought a permit is also required to excavate the ground. Weitzel said staff does not think this is a CNME or Intermediate or Minor Review, so this would have to be approved with the regular process. This could also be done in an emergency meeting, but that would require having at least six members of the commission meeting the following week. Swaim noted it would not require very much discussion. Weitzel said the commission would discuss the type of window to replace the current egress windows, because the commission usually does not allow crank-out awning. Also, there is debate on whether the door is original. He said there should not be too much discussion. Terdalkar said there would be a meeting in two weeks as well. Commission members discussed whether they are available to meet the following week. Buxton said they could do a double hung egress window that lines up in the middle of the window above. Weitzel confirmed that Carlson, Toomey, Swaim, Baker, and he could attend a meeting the following week. Weitzel said the commission would need details submitted on the types of windows they plan to install. Gunn said the proposal appears to be very close to a Certificate of no Material Effect. According to the guidelines, approval by full commission is not required if there is no change to significant historic features. It sounds like the applicants plan to do exactly what the commission would be looking for. Weitzel agreed. He said he is not particularly concerned about the change to the basement windows or the door. Baker said she does not think basement windows are significant features. Weitzel said the timeline would be dependent on when the applicant submits the needed details. Then staff will draw up a CME for Weitzel's signature. That would remove the need for an additional meeting the following week. Gunn said he would like to see the two recent certificates at the next meeting, so the commission can review the details. Swaim asked for clarification on the planned changes for the kitchen addition. Terdalkar said the plan is to extend the foundation to include the addition, and add a window on the north elevation. Dyer said they will have to move the kitchen in order to do the excavation, but they will not be making changes to it. Weitzel said if some modifications to the addition are needed, the commission would like to match the work being done on the front of the house. Swaim agreed there are wonderful things being done with the house. New Buildina Material Terdalkar said that there is an application for approval of a new material as wood substitute. He passed a sample of the material to the commission members to inspect. He asked what the procedure is for approving new material. Weitzel said it took months to approve fiber cement board. Gunn said in that case, the material was stressed for about 40 days by putting the sample underwater and then freezing it. There was no affect on it after that time. Weitzel said it is sold in set dimensions that are pre-primed, but it can be cut. Terdalkar said it can be cut, but then the exposed surfaces need to be primed again. Weitzel said the commission could require the material be used with the smooth side facing outward. Swaim noted that the smooth size is not completely smooth. Gunn said it would probably be smooth if it were painted. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 10 Weitzel said he found one review on the web that liked it, and it looked like an independent review. He said the commission could require testing. Gunn said the material should be tested. It looks like masonite, which was useless when it got wet. Terdalkar said there are no stated guidelines for approving new materials. Weitzel said it was up to the commission to decide what is required. Gunn said he is willing to test a sample, immersing it in water and then freezing it. Toomey asked what the material is made out of. Weitzel said it is made out of sawdust, with resin in it to hold it together. Terdalkar said the company website advertises it as material for trim. Swaim asked what kind of wood it is made of. Ponto said the manufacturer's website says byproducts from sawmills and forest thinnings, which is ground wood. Weitzel said it is made out of the same thing as cardboard. Gunn noted it is only as good as the glue that holds it together, and added that the fiber cement board was able to absorb 30 percent of its weight in water and freeze without cracking. Weitzel said no decision would be made on the material at this meeting. Approval of Minutes for June 22. 2006 Meetina Swaim asked if the decision for the roof of the house at 817 Iowa Avenue, discussion found on page seven, was to change its height. Carlson said he was not sure. Weitzel said the applicants agreed to the change. Ponto said that was proposed in the revised drawings. Carlson suggested not approving the minutes right away, and instead everyone looking closely at their own statements to make sure they are accurate. Terdalkar said he filled in some of the gaps as he was able. Weitzel said he has noted the changes to his sections. Toomey said he also looked at his. Carlson said then there might just be many changes to note. Weitzel noted the following changes: . Page 1, paragraph 3, second sentence, the word should be "abatron." . Page 3, paragraph 5, he said he was trying to summarize what some of the members were thinking so he would change the sentence to reflect that. . Page 4, at the bottom, where Venter said "he could move the stairs back..." . Page 5, at the beginning, "as long as there was enough room for the stairs and the porch, the plan is okay, ...." . Page 5, paragraph 5, "this house likely would not have been designed with paneled columns." . Page 5, paragraph 9, "with no recessed panels." . Page 5, paragraph 9, "open up the porch with metalwork on the railings." · Page 6, paragraph 4, "Weitzel asked if the piers could be built with wood and wrapped with fiber cement board, or should we consider requiring masonry or concrete block for the tiers." . Page 7, paragraph 4, "it doesn't matter then." . Page 8, paragraph 9, should be soldered rather than welded. Weitzel said because a permit is not required to replace a door panel he suggests striking the discussion regarding 228 South Summit Street application. The review of the door should not have happened. Gunn asked if the craftsman door was on there at the time of the application. Weitzel said no. Carlson asked why the application came before the commission. The staff or someone on the commission should have noticed that and taken it off of the agenda before the meeting. Terdalkar said a permit is required if the frame is also replaced along with the door. Weitzel said the application did not specify any changes, except replacing one door with another. Gunn said the discussion happened, so it should not be deleted, but a note can be made to the minutes from this meeting that the a review was not required. Weitzel said that is fine. The application for the door replacement did not need a review. Carlson added the following edits to the minutes: . Page 2, paragraph 11, "a cape cod or colonial revival." Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 11 . Page 5, paragraph 13, "Carlson said that a simple panel and perhaps simple crown molding might be most appropriate." . Change the spelling of "piers" throughout. . Page 7, paragraph 12, "Carlson said that the proposed design significantly alters the current shape of the roof and the massing." . Page 8, paragraph 3, ""He said with this change," and "change to the roofline and created a hodgepodge.. . " . Page 9, paragraph 8, clarify that "the original period of the house should prevaiL." Gunn said paragraph eight on page six is fine as it is, since he does not know what exactly the applicant was talking about at that point. Terdalkar said he believes the applicant was saying he was okay with doing whatever the commission asked so he could install the new AlC units. MOTION: Baker moved to accept the minutes as amended. Gunn seconded and the motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Discussion of Officer Election Weitzel asked if the commission members would like to wait until the tenth member has been appointed to the commission before voting for the Chair and Vice-Chair positions. The vote would otherwise be an agenda item for the next meeting. Terdalkar said the vacancy has been announced to the council, and should be filled within a month or so. Weitzel said theoretically the vote is supposed to be done as soon as possible after new appointments are done, but sometimes they take a while to complete. He added that elections have been held in the past with vacant positions. Terdalkar said that is fine then. Weitzel said he is willing to another year as Chair. Carlson said he is willing to be Vice-Chair again, though he will be busier this year. Weitzel said he would probably be busier this year, so there might be more work for the Vice-Chair. He will not be available during the day to sign things on a short notice. Terdalkar said some sort of arrangement could be made, using emails to send draft certificates and finding times to get signatures. Weitzel said unless someone else would like the positions, the commission can continue as before, and the election will be held at the next meeting. Historic Inventory of Near South Side Weitzel said there is a Central District Plan going on, and the near south side will be evaluated as a part of the process. There has never been a comprehensive historic architectural survey of the area, and no history of the area has been written. There are a few resources that should be evaluated in terms of historic integrity and preservation in the area. He is leaning towards putting out an application to see what sort of response would be received. Terdalkar asked if the plan is to hire a consultant. Weitzel said it seems logical to do it through a consultant. If so, preparation for a Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant application should start immediately, because they are due in August. Gunn asked how many historic properties are likely to be left. Weitzel said he did not think very many. He said he thinks the depot is already a landmark. An inventory would find out what resources are there. Gunn said definitely the historic properties should be inventoried, but he is concerned about spending money on doing architectural evaluations of new buildings. He asked if the task could be narrowed down. Weitzel said the State Historical Society has asked for the commission to do the inventory, and they might as well hire a consultant. Swaim asked if that is the only district that is up for review. Terdalkar said it is not the whole district. Weitzel said it would only look for the current resources in the area. Swaim asked if there are any other surveys in progress. Weitzel said the assumption is that it would not be a district, but would be individual structures designated as landmarks. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 12 Gunn said he agrees, but it might be a lot of effort for very little return. Weitzel said if the volunteers are available, then it could done similar to other conservation districts. Some of the issues are that having an outside consultant would add validity to the process given that it is a politically hot area. Swaim said an outside consultant makes sense. Weitzel said it does not have to be a very large survey, not even as large as Melrose. Carlson asked for clarification on what is included in the area. Weitzel said it would be from the tracks to Burlington, and from Capitol to Gilbert. Swaim said the west side of Capitol is almost all new, though there is more intact on the east side. Gunn asked if the commission could request a proposal. Terdalkar said the area to be surveyed could be identified before the RFP stage. Gunn said someone who is unfamiliar with the area would go through a lot of effort for very little gain. Weitzel agreed, though to make sure any of the structures are National Registry eligible, deep backgrounds will need to be researched. Weitzel said Marlis said a survey should be done when she was asked about identifying structures at a previous meeting. Carlson said that makes sense for any sort of valid evaluation. Weitzel said the commission could stipulate that if a building is clearly not historic, it can be ignored. Carlson asked if the state need site forms for all the modern buildings. Weitzel said no. Helen said Friends has scheduled a meeting for August 10 to train students on how to do research. They also plan to approach the school district to contact the social studies departments for additional participants. She asked whether they should do research on the south side and have some information on hand before it is needed. Weitzel said when he suggested doing a volunteer inventory, the state said forms should be filled out and a survey should be completed. Weitzel said the volunteers would basically be doing the background work, looking through city directories and similar resources. Swaim asked whether the volunteers would be high school students. Helen said they are college students. Weitzel asked if the social studies teachers would help their students. Helen said they would like to recruit the teachers themselves, not the high school students. Weitzel said the commission would need to continue discussion about the survey at future meetings. Weitzel said the Historic Preservation Society and Historic Preservation Commission were jointly awarded money by the National Trust from the Historic Preservation Disaster Recovery Fund. That was earmarked for siding replacement and similar projects. He said Terdalkar suggested the commission come up with criteria on how the money will be awarded. Helen added that it might be wise to have Friends board members participate in the discussion about criteria. Weitzel said a subcommittee could be assigned to the task, which included members of Friends. The commission could also decide that criteria are not needed to hand out the money. Terdalkar said Friends could propose criteria and have the commission approve them. Weitzel said it is not a large amount, so keeping a narrow scope would be good start, such as replacing vinyl siding with cement board or wood. Swaim asked how much was awarded. Weitzel said $10K, $5K from the Trust matched by Friends. He said he thinks the commission members should have something to say about how the money is awarded because it falls in the purview of the commission. Swaim asked for confirmation that the money is intended to repair storm damage. Weitzel said yes, for the April tornado. Swaim asked if people who were interested in the money would have to apply. Weitzel said probably what would happen is that once the criteria are set, some sort of notification would be sent out to let people know about it. Swaim asked if people would still be at that stage. Terdalkar said yes. So far, three applications for the funds have been received, two of which were for trees. Some people are looking for insurance gap money, since no criteria have been specified. Weitzel asked if the commission wants to address this as a whole or in a subcommittee. Swaim said since Friends matched funds, they should have a say in it. Weitzel said the commission could let Friends handle awarding the funds as long as the repairs or changes meet the commission's guidelines and the Secretary of Interior's requirements. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 13, 2006 Page 13 Helen asked if the guidelines exclude people who live on Hotz Avenue and Rochester Avenue. Terdalkar said the funds were not restricted to a district or any particular area. The grant was offered for disaster recovery/rehabilitation work that is consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Helen asked for confirmation that as long as the applicants are willing to follow the commission's guidelines, anyone can be considered for the funds regardless of where the property is located. Weitzel said yes. Terdalkar said the letter specifies compliance with Secretary of Interior's standards, and the Commission and Friends may choose to use the local guidelines. Carlson said it does not have to be a currently designated structure. Weitzel said the criteria should include historical integrity in some manner. Terdalkar said because many of the issues are not clear, the Commission and Friends should set selection criteria. Weitzel suggested starting out with those limitations, and if there is any debate over a particular building's eligibility, that can be addressed as needed. Michaud left at this point. Carlson asked whether the commission would have any input at all, or leave it entirely up to Friends. Weitzel suggested letting Friends decide whether they would like the commission to have further input. If so, it can be discussed again. Terdalkar asked whether the commission would like to review the proposed criteria. Weitzel said the commission would review, and then discuss them if there is anything they do not like. Helen said the state form required an explanation and demonstration of damage for a particular reason, based on the date the work was completed. Since no one was told the work has to be done before a certain date, will that be an issue with reimbursing people through this fund. Weitzel said since this is a grant, Friends can decide what the date or other criteria will be involved. Weitzel said it is fortunate that these funds are available, as well as money from the state legislature given to the Historic Preservation Society. Helen asked when the second round would be. Weitzel said he does not know. Terdalkar said grant approval has been conditional so far. Weitzel said some applications are not complete because the property owners did not sign them, which has slowed down the process. They would like to make sure the first round applicants are all set before moving forward. Swaim asked for confirmation whether the ones that went through have been announced already. Weitzel said he thought the announcements were planned for the same time. He said Buxton has changed his plans to side in wood rather than fiber cement board, probably because of a grant he received. Helen said it is also less expensive. Weitzel said there was concern about the aesthetics about the fiber cement board. Helen said if volunteer research effort should encompass other things, Friends is willing to do work that would benefit the city as long as they know what to do. Weitzel said they could start on Manville Heights. They have set up a meeting and want to have a district because there is a lot of new development circling around the area. Swaim said that area then seems ripe for a survey. Terdalkar said the residents would be happy if any help was offered. Terdalkar noted that a second meeting may be necessary in the fourth week of July. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm. c = .... ~ ~ .s 6"0 = 100 U 8 c ~ =~ .... ~ '-= -~= =c= C=N ~"O ~ C ~ ~ loot ~< .... 100 = - ~ == fO'l ~ I I I I I I .... 0 ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I >< t::: I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I M I I I I ~ I I C:! ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I I ~ ~ I >< \C I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I QC I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I I ~ \C I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I IT) I ~ I I I I I ~ C:! ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I >< in I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I .... I ~ I I I I I I I .... ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I I ~ I I I I ~ in I 0 I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I ..,. I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I I ~ I I I I ~ IT) I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I C:! ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I I ~ I I I I ~ ..,. I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I fO'l I I I I I I I I .... I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ I I I ~ .... I I I ..,. I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I \C I ~ ~ I I I I .... I ~ ><: ~ ~ I 0 ~ I I I 0 ~ .... fO'l I 0 I I I I ~ I I I I I M I ~ ~ I I I I C:! I ~ ><: ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I I 0 >< M I 0 0 I I I I ~ I I I I I ~ I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I I 0 ~ M I I I I I ~ I I I I I C'I I I I I I .... I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I I 0 ~ .... .... I I I I I ~ I I I I I '" 0\ QC I' \C I' 00 ~ 0\ I' I' ~ 0\ 0\ ~ 00 E .~ ~ 0 ~ !'2 ~ !'2 ~ ~ ~ !'2 !'2 !'2 <I) ~ Q;; 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ t:! t:! t:! t:! N t:! t:! N t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! E-<~ .... .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. = t>] II> .. .. Cl. e ~ = "0 ~ .. = .. ;; ::I ~ ~ ;... 's "il .. = ~ = .. .. e II> = '" II> .: U II> .s .. e '" .tl ~ ~ II> i: ~ = .: "0 .: '; '" ::I .. y y ~ ~ ~ .. .. .. c ~ ~ i .. = y ~ ~ '0; = u c .. ~ en ~ = [;oil ll. ll. en Eo- Z fioi ~ ~ ..; ~ ~ ~ ~ ..; ..; ~ d ~ ..; ~ "'C:l Q) .... '" Q) ::i bll..c ~.S e ~ ..... Q) "5"55~~ tf) fIl en 0 ~ J:~~z~ II II II II II ~ E:::!~ ~><ooz MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERV A TON COMMISSION LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM JULY 27, 2006 PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Jim Buxton, Guy with Jim Buxton, Larry Meyers, John Rummelhart CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Meyers House: Meyers said that he owns a property in the 900 block of Iowa A venue that received significant damage from the April tornadoes. He said he is trying to decide what can or cannot be done to the property at this point. Meyers said the insurance company considers the building a total loss. Meyers said that he has informally been attempting to sell the property and has had discussions with someone who was interested in buying the property to demolish it and build something new. Meyers said that if the potential owner was able to put this together, it would most likely involve two properties. He said that before he encourages or discourages the potential buyer, he was hoping to informally gauge the reaction of the Commission to a proposal like that. Meyers said he knew it was a sensitive issue in that part of town, and he knew that some of the properties on Iowa Avenue had less damage and are able to be rebuilt. Meyers said the damage here is pretty significant. He said that the economic feasibility of trying to rebuild the structure is pretty risky. Meyers said he has been struggling with the question of what it would be in the end ifit would be a rental property. He said that if an old house is rebuilt as a rental property, the market in this town doesn1t support those kinds of things very well any more. Meyers said he also had some questions about whether that neighborhood is ready for owner-occupied. Meyers said the problem in weighing that question is that whatever answer one comes up with determines a lot as to how one goes about dealing with the property. He said that he is a remodeling contractor by trade. Meyers said he has looked at the property and feels that the cost of rebuilding would be very, very significant. He said that he has too many things going on to deal with this himself, and it is not feasible for him to hire the work out. Meyers said that one of the propositions he has considered is to demolish the building and have something new built. He said he does not have a formal proposal or sketch to show the Commission but would like to informally see what the position of the Commission might be. Weitzel said that he has discussed this with Meyers extensively, and Meyers has also discussed this with Terdalkar and Karin Franklin and other planning staff. Weitzel said the Commission should consider what the Commission thinks about reconstruction of the house, or, if not reconstruction, if the Commission would or would not allow demolition, and if it did, what it would like to see come back into this location. Weitzel said there has also been some discussion of possibly conjoining lots. Meyers confIrmed this and said the property to the right of his also had tornado damage. Weitzel said that if the Commission chooses to comment without having a formal application before it, those would be the questions to be answered. 2 Weitzel pointed out that the porch is now missing, and he did not believe it was original. Meyers said he thought it actually was original. He said that the brick on the columns was actually the same brick that is on the foundation. Meyers added that the porch is not reasonably salvageable. He said there was a hip roof over the porch, but the top of that was sheared off. Meyers said the front wall up above the porch roof is pushed in. Meyers stated that besides the roof, most of the ceiling structure on the second floor is also gone. He said there are a number of windows that wonlt survive as they are; they would have to be duplicated. Meyers said the next thing after that would be that if one is replacing that many windows, he would replace all of them on the house and make them energy efficient. He said the house does not have insulation in it. Meyers stated that to do a correct rebuilding, one would have to go inside and take all the plaster and lath off, put in insulated windows, insulate the sidewalls and the ceiling, and then drywall. He said that in the process, one would have to take all the trim off; it's one of the processes that just starts to snowball. Weitzel said the Commission has discussed in the past whether replacement windows are more energy efficient. He said that a good, sound historic window with a solid storm is actually incredibly energy efficient Weitzel asked if there were questions for the property owner. Swaim asked if the building has been tarped over. Meyers confmned this. Weitzel asked Commission members if they would be comfortable issuing an opinion. Ponto said the Commission could certainly review what is in the guidelines. Weitzel said that staff feels it is not appropriate at this point for the Commission to give an opinion, so he would like the Commission to decide if it is comfortable with that. Carlson said the Commission can certainly raise issues that mayor not be addressed. He asked if the problem here is that this is not officially on the agenda. Weitzel said that for the Commission to vote on something formally, there needs to be an application. Meyers said he was trying to avoid someone having to go through the time and expense of making a formal proposal, if the sentiment of the Commission is that it will be difficult to have it passed, in which case he would probably start looking at other options. Carlson asked if the Commission has as much information about this property as it had about the other two properties it allowed to be demolished. Ponto asked if there is an engineering report for the property. Weitzel replied that John Roffman did not submit an engineering report, and the Commission mostly looked at photographs of that property. Terdalkar said that the sorority submitted a structural report. Weitzel said that because Roffman did not submit an engineering report, it was apparently not required by HIS for demolitions, so the Commission would have to be fair and allow others to not have structural engineering reports. Carlson agreed. Meyers asked if any consideration is given to the amount of money required to rebuild and how that amount would relate to a resale value after it is rebuilt. He said one of his concerns is that the cost of rebuilding would result in a property that cost more than he could turn around and sell it for. Weitzel said the Commission wants to work with the applicant and make sure he doesn't take a financial bath on this; he said the Commission is always concerned about that. He said the Commission is also concerned about the effect changes to the streetscape would have on the community. Weitzel said the historic context comes into play here. Meyers said that if some of this went through and involved both of those properties, that would obviously be a multi-unit building. He said that no one would purchase those two properties, demo them, and then put up a large single-family home. Terdalkar said that in the absence ofa formal application, if the consensus is for demolition, Meyers should not assume that demolition has been officially approved. Weitzel said these situations are tricky, but, especially when there is an expensive process, the Commission has tried a number of times to give the applicant some idea as to 3 where the Commission's thoughts lie. Swaim said she did not think there was enough information. She said, however, it appears that every other house except the neighboring house on that side oflowa Avenue on that block will stand and be repaired. Swaim said she thought losing this house and/or the one next to it would be quite a loss to the streetscape. Weitzel pointed out that there are two houses the Commission has approved on Governor Street that were infill buildings that were designed with the Commission's guidance and review. Swaim agreed that the Commission has designed housing in the past that works and is sympathetic. Weitzel said one thing concerns whether the building is so significant that it can't be destroyed, and another is what the final appearance will be. Swaim agreed. Ponto said that, in his opinion, there is significant damage to the house, and it is potentially eligible for demolition, based on plans for what would replace it. Brennan said he would probably agree with that, although he did not know about the neighboring property. Weitzel suggested the Commission discuss whether it would be willing to join lots and consider a single building there. Gunn said the property appears to be pretty seriously damaged, but he would like to at least walk around it before he approves a demolition. Regarding what goes back on the land, he said the Commission tries pretty hard to control the scale of buildings that go back. Gunn said there are guidelines that limit the amount of area on the street far;:ade, so buying two lots and putting them together to build a big building would not work with the guidelines. He said that if a buyer has that in mind, he'll be disappointed when he gets to that point. Swaim asked about the procedure for this scenario. She asked, if there were an application for demolition before the Commission, there would also have to be plans for what would replace the building at the same time. Weitzel agreed that is what the guidelines require. He said that ultimately the Commission has approval of the building that goes in. Gunn said that the reason for that is so an owner doesn't demolish a building and then be disappointed when he finds out what he can't do. He said that if an owner knows what he can and cannot do before demolishing the building, that is probably good for everyone. Meyers said he is in complete agreement with the goals that, if this was demolished and something replaced it, he does not want to see some ugly box sitting there either. Gunn suggested Meyers review the guidelines and apply for a demolition permit so that the Commission can look at this formally. Weitzel said the safe thing would be to tell anyone this property is sold to that this will probably go forward as a single lot. Ponto said there are site and scale guidelines and square footage requirements for a single family house, versus those for a multi-family building. Gunn commented that the site and scale guidelines are tied to what existed before. He said that if the house currently does not exceed 1,200 square feet on the front elevation, than the owner cannot build something bigger than 1,200 square feet on the front elevation. Gunn said it doesn't matter how many lots there are, the building size will be determined by the street far;:ade. He added that if someone owned the entire block, he would still have to have small structures going down the line. Weitzel said he thought that was probably the intent of the original demolition review to not allow for the conjoining of lots. Meyers said this information helps to sort things out. Weitzel said that Meyers can come back with any proposal and see what the Commission decides at that point. Carlson asked if there are any written estimates for the actual costs of rebuilding. Meyers said he has gone through it himself and has done a lot of reconstruction work. He said he has a good feel for the costs. Meyers said that when one begins projects like this, there are a lot of unforeseen things. Regarding whether or not he would vote to approve a demolition, Carlson said something he would consider is how many of the things really cannot be fixed or it would be incredibly expensive to fix back to how they where before versus how many things Meyers would want to do just because the building is being remodeled. Meyers said that he understands the scope of the Commission to mostly concern the exterior. He said that the 4 original exterior of the house was stucco. Meyers said that when the stucco started to come off, he removed all the loose stucco and then went over it with vinyl siding. He said that therefore, everything would have to come off before anything new could go back on. Meyers said that when one gets inside, the common sense approach would be, if one is doing this amount of work to a building, to insulate it and update the plumbing and wiring. He said it may not relate to the storm damage but would just make sense, and there would be requirements to bring the house up to code. Weitzel said the Commission has given Meyers a rough idea of what issues it would consider. Meyers thanked the Commission for the information. Press-Citizen Article: Burford said there was an article in the Press-Citizen on Tuesday that basically made the Commission out to be the villain in the situation of costs to rebuild. She asked if the Commission would want to respond to the article. Burford said that over the period of time since the tornado, there has been an extraordinary effort to work with people and to provide tools for people to be able to deal with these situations. She stated that not only did the State come up with money, but the City came up with additional funds too. Burford said that in its review of situations, the Commission has not been arrogant but has enforced the ordinances that exist, and efforts have been made to provide mediation for people to help them cope with these situations. She said this is an opportunity that the Commission may wish to consider addressing. Burford said the article is just another negative for the Commission, and this would be a chance for the Commission to rebut the premise that all is negative. Swaim said that if the Commission did respond, it would be an opportunity to get the word out that the next allocation period begins in the fall of 2006, as opposed to the fall of2007 as stated in the article. Weitzel agreed that is a factual error. Weitzel said that he has spoken with the opinion page editor. Weitzel said that after this article was written, apparently Michael Maharry submitted a letter that was published. Weitzel said the opinion page editor had the attitude that the article was just presenting different philosophical viewpoints and was not intended to drag the Commission over the coals or vilify the Commission. Burford said her point is that when the article refers to the standards set by the City's Historic Preservation Commission, the ordinances enforced by the Commission aren't strictly the Commission IS guidelines and said the fact is that the ordinances for historic preservation overlay are voted upon by the community. She said it is not something that is just done by the Commission but is something that represents the community. Burford said the guidelines are ordinances and go before City Council to be enacted. Brennan said the Commission, however, is the face of the City for administering the ordinances. He said also it doesn't change the fact that the City never provides money to comply with its ordinances, regardless of what it is; - whether it's a sidewalk or something else, the City tells the owner to do it and he does it. Michaud said that a clarification of Burford1s points and a correction of the allocation period would be a legitimate response. She said there might be a few negative phrases in the article, but there is a lot of public support for people rebuilding. Michaud said there are always costs that aren't covered in rebuilding. She said she would not want to get too defensive about this, because she doesn't think it is that negative. Weitzel said it is also not a great idea, even if there is bad publicity in an article like this, to become viciously vindictive in return. Burford said she would not think a response should be vindictive. Weitzel said the Commission could certainly clarify its position. He said he would draft something in response and circulate it for comments. Burford said she would just like to remind people of all the positive things that the Commission did. 5 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Appropriateness: 946 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar stated that this house is a contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said the owner, Jim Buxton, is proposing several things, mostly involving the fenestration, the rear entrance on the structure, and rearranging and removing some things. Terdalkar said the owner proposes to remove the door at the northwest comer of the building. He said there are proposals for two windows: one to be removed and one to be replaced with a similar size window with a similar vertical line. Terdalkar said the owner has also replaced one window. He said there was a slider window on the other fac;ade. Terdalkar showed where a window on the back/north side of the house will be replaced with a window of similar size. He showed where another window will be replaced with an egress-sized window and said there will be a window well around it. Terdalkar said that one of his suggestions would be to match the vertical line by installing a window that matches one of the other windows on the house. He said it is a new window, but the owner has agreed to remove it if necessary. Buxton said the new window is basically too wide, and he feels he should make it more narrow, possibly the same width as the window right above it and possibly a little smaller, because it is in a kitchen area. Toomey asked if the window would be lined up with the one above. Buxton said there is a wall right underneath the one above, so that it would be difficult to line up. He pointed out that in his grant application, there is a photograph from the 1952 Iowa Hawkeye, and that particular window is not right below the one above it but is off from that window. Guy said that if the window could possibly be lined up, he would do that. Buxton agreed. He said that he is putting new wood siding on the whole house, so now would be the time to do it. Buxton said he would just have to see how it lines up with the wall on the inside. Regarding the door underneath the center landing, Buxton said he proposes to eliminate the door because with the stairway going down from the kitchen to the basement level, in order to conform to updated building regulations concerning the length of the risers and the way they fall, the door would not line up with anything, not risers or anything else. He said that in order to have a smooth side that is covered with siding and a foundation that comes up to a normal level, it would be much better for the overall structure to keep out the weather, rather than putting in a door just because a door has been there in the past. Regarding the proposed window changes, Buxton said he thought the building would look fme with the landing windows centered and the other windows the same width. Weitzel asked Terdalkar if HIS is requiring the change in the stairwell. Terdalkar said that is not the case. He said the owner is working on finishing the basement and that is why the access is needed. Terdalkar said that is what has triggered the changes in the stairwell. Buxton said that is exactly right. He said that when he submitted his building permit to redo the basement, he was subject to all the revised rules about the stairway, the risers, the run, and the headroom. Terdalkar confirmed this but said that HIS has not started the procedure. He said that Buxton has requested a change in the floor plan, which has resulted in the stairwell going down there and Buxton having to conform to the rules. Weitzel asked ifthere is a door into the basement on the other side of the building. Buxton confirmed this and said that door would remain. Terdalkar clarified that the door under discussion may have been created afterwards, when the basement was finished as an apartment. He said he did not believe this was an original door for this basement. Weitzel asked ifthere is any way to have a stairwell there with the existing building code. He asked if the stairwell is in good 6 enough shape to be left in place, if it has to be updated. Terdalkar said that is true, unless the owner is changing it. He said the owner is proposing to change the landing and how the flight goes down to the basement. Guy said the door would have to be raised up, and then there would have to be a three-foot stoop out there too. Weitzel asked if the steps are all intact in the basement or if they would have to be replaced. Guy said it is all gone. He said the whole stairway is gone down there. He said he plans to go straight on down from the kitchen. Buxton said, regarding the proposed plan for refinishing the basement, the steps that go down to the basement used to go down to a landing that is right in front of the door. He said that in order to do this project with the basement with the revised United Building Code requirements, the steps, in order to have the proper headway, won't line up with that door any more. Buxton said they come down about six steps and then there is a landing at a lower point, and then one heads down the other steps back to the east down into the basement. Swaim asked if one walked into the existing door with the new steps from the kitchen, one would walk in and then would have to step down six inches to get to the landing. Buxton confirmed that it would be a pretty steep drop-off there. Buxton said the basement would be as it has always been, but it would be a better way to seal off the basement apartment from the main floor. He said there would be a locking door at the top and bottom of the stairs; however, the electrical service panel would still be in the service area. Michaud said that there are some logistics here such that she did not feel that the Commission could insist that the door remain. Guy said they could put a window in that location. Gunn said that the slider window that was placed didn't look very good, and he thought the owner realizes that. He said that if that is replaced with a window that is more proportional to the one above, losing that door does not architecturally, in his opinion, affect this fa~ade very much at all. Weitzel said that functionally versus historically, function comes out ahead on this issue. Gunn stated that the door being in that spot doesn't really matter if when this is done it looks like it is appropriate to Iowa Avenue in 1900. He said he does not care if the door is lost but is more concerned about having windows in the right proportion with trim consistent throughout. Michaud asked if there is a sidewalk leading to the door. Buxton said there is not. Michaud suggested some nice landscaping to occupy that space. She said there is a complementarity on the other side of the house, where a door at the lower level has been shifted over to the other side. Carlson asked under what circumstances are exemptions to the UBC possible for historic buildings. Weitzel said that Karin Franklin has informed him that that is apparently the case only with landmarks, but he is hoping the consultants for the Preservation Plan review will give a definitive ruling on that. Carlson said this is driven by the UBC, because it is changing something that needn't be changed if it weren't for the UBC. Weitzel said the old ordinance before the new development code said the Commission had fmal review over changes mandated by Housing Inspection Services. He said he did not know when that has ever been actually allowed to go into effect. Weitzel said the Commission has never had that review, even though it has been on the books. He said that when the Commission has asked for it, it has been ignored. Gunn asked about the casement windows going in in place of double hung windows. Guy said there would be three windows in the foundation for egress. Gunn asked if all the casements going in would be in the foundation for egress. Guy confirmed this. Buxton said there would be no casement windows on the first or second floors. Toomey said he would really like to see that bottom window lined up with the top one if possible. Ponto said there are other windows on the north side that don't match. Buxton said the center window in the bay may be lined up with the one above it. Gunn said that it probably always was a kitchen back there, and the window was probably always shifted a little. Carlson stated that if it was off center in 1952, it has probably always been off center. 7 Weitzel commented that four-squares were not always symmetrical, especially in kitchen and bathroom areas. He said that balancing the window with the size change would give a little discretion for the placement of it. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 946 Iowa Avenue, as submitted. Michaud seconded the motion. Ponto asked if the application included changing the dimensions of the kitchen window. Terdalkar said that was proposed after the application was submitted. Ponto asked if the letter from the applicant is considered part of the application, and Terdalkar confIrmed this. Carlson asked if the porch foundation is included with the other foundation replacement or if the porch would stay as is. Buxton said he would use that simulated antique block that would be on the top floor. He said that the front part of the foundation that is underneath where the deck is is going to be all a part of the concrete foundation but it will only go down about four feet to get below the frost line. Buxton showed an area that will be fIlled in with block. Guon asked if there is any discussion about the window trim in the application. Guy said that he has about fIve- quarter. He said the top board is 5 Yz inches on all the windows, and the rest is 4 Yz. Guy asked about the cornerboards. Terdalkar said he had suggested three to fIve inches. He suggested matching the trim around the window. Guy said he talked to Shelley McCafferty, who said that they could have the drip cap custom made to fIt the fIve- quarter. Weitzel asked if it would be a plain, square drip cap that just has a slant on top or the more elaborate curved profIle. He said that one would see both types on other foursquares. Weitzel said that Guy would probably see a shape on the wall to indicate what kind of drip cap was there before. He said there are two types: one is a utilitarian, flat wooden drip cap, with or without flashing on top, and the other is a more Edwardian type that sticks out past the windows-on both sides. Weitzel said that either one of those would probably be okay. Guy asked about the material for the drip caps and asked if aluminum would be acceptable. Guon said that an original wood drip cap shows very little anyway, so he did not think the material would make a big difference. Swaim asked if there was any kind of trim or molding on the dormers. Guy said there was not, because the dormers were already sided with vinyl. He said that now it is plywood and tyvek. Terdalkar said that Buxton is working with the State Historical Society for a grant, so the building materials may have to conform to the expectations of the State Historical Society. Gunn said he would then use a wood drip cap on to ensure that it would be acceptable. Guy said he would just go with the wood then, because it's fIve-quarter, and one can't get fIve-quarter; it has to be specially made. Guon said he did not recall the Commission specifying the exact design of a drip cap before. He said he would just like to see the trim be like the original, with a wooden drip cap. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Gunn amended the main motion to include the stipulation that the windows are all to be trimmed to match the original and that wooden drip caps be used. Michaud seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1. with Carlson votin!! no. Carlson said his objection is to the removal of the door, which is a defIning characteristic ofa foursquare house, and because it sounded like it was being done only for a reason that the Commission should have had control over to begin with. Weitzel agreed but said the applicant should not be punished because of a disagreement among City government staff. 714 Colle!!e Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a non-contributing structure in the College Green Historic District. He said it was determined to be non-contributing in the survey because of many alterations to the building as well as no original roofline, the massing, and the replacement siding that has caused it to lose its integrity. Terdalkar said 8 the proposal is to replace the wood siding with fiber cement board siding and possibly maintain the trim that was there that was revealed as a result of removing the existing aluminum siding. Terdalkar referred to a photograph showing how the structure looked before a fire in the early 1900s. He said there was very wide trim, a Queen Anne feature. He said that when the rootline was redone, the cross gable of the original structure was realigned to be at a different pitch and in a different location. Terdalkar said that is why the vertical lines don't match up with the center of the pitch. He said that the first and second floor trim is original, for the most part, and the third floor is now used as an attic floor. Weitzel said that historically, the fire was determined to have occurred in the 1910-1912 range, and the uses of the house as a fraternity and rooming house postdated that point. He said that the significance of Max Mayer has pretty well disappeared with the destruction caused by the fire. Rummelhart said that he is buying the building from Terry Dunlap. He said this is a gorgeous building that is worth salvaging. Rummelhart said that the debate is between retaining the existing siding versus tearing it all off. He said there are a number of other considerations that go along with that. Rummelhart said that he is still working with the insurance people. He said that he has been considering doing the three sides with fiber cement board and leaving the front. Rurnmelhart said there is still potential money that he would qualify for. Rummelhart said the fiber cement board has durability, but a bigger issue involves the fact that he pays the heat for those buildings. He said the building has bare walls, and this might be the opportunity to install insulation, a lot of which is rebatable. Rummelhart said his view on this is to not just maintain but get the house back into the shape and design that it should be in. Weitzel asked how soon Rummelhart plans to do this work and asked ifhe could wait to consult with the State Historical Society. Weitzel said that if Rummelhart gives the State Historical Society a chance to review the proposed work, he could get federal tax credit money, because this is a commercial property. He said that in return for giving the State Historical Society control over the property, the owner is basically asking the State Historical Society to review it and say how things should be rebuilt; then the money is available with no other strings attached. Weitzel said that the State Historical Society gave Buxton more money for the whole house to be done in wood than it would have given him ifhe just did the front fa9ade; however, they would tolerate cement board on all sides but the front. Weitzel said that if Rummelhart doesn't take their money at all, the Commission has typically allowed fiber cement board on all facades when the wood is sufficiently deteriorated that it is not worth trying to save. Rummelhart asked who has the discretion of determining the deterioration of the wood. Weitzel said it is sort of a group effort. He said the Commission has been unable to establish a good procedure for that. Rummelhart asked if the existing wood siding could be salvaged and some quantity of new spliced in where there is rot in some areas. Weitzel suggested that Rummelhart get good storms for the windows for energy efficiency. He said that the storms are less expensive than replacement windows. Weitzel said that with a good EDPM seal on the inside ofa storm window, that seals well enough to give an energy break, and it doesn't cost $600 per window. He said, however, that using storms is ultimately Rummelhart's choice, and the Commission does not regulate that, but he feels that storms are the best choice economically. Gunn asked Rummelhart ifhe has looked at Marvin storm screen combination windows, either the metal or wood clad. He said they are inexpensive, look good, work just fine, and can be clad. Rummelhart said that the Monray have some different designs, including the flush mount. Regarding the siding, Rummelhart said he is looking for durability, longevity, and also the historical accuracy of things. He said one plan would be to retain, with fiber cement board, all the banding, including the banding transition along the east side. 9 Weitzel stated that the advantage historically to just leaving the wood and filling in what is rotted it that the owner doesn't have to guess what he's doing - it's just filling a template back in. He said that ifit is all taken off, one has to be careful to do accurate matching. Weitzel said the Commission has gone both ways on these kinds of things but tends to lean toward preserving wood whenever possible. He said the Commission does allow fiber cement board but said that would disqualify Rummelhart from the federal tax credits and the $15,000 grant money. Gunn pointed out that it would be a 20% federal tax credit for work both inside and out so that 20% of what is put into the house comes back to the owner. Terdalkar said there is also a state tax credit, which is 13 years out for residential uses but may be less for a commercial property. Toomey said that the cost of repairing the wood would be a fraction of the cost oftearoffand replacement with fiber cement board. Rummelhart agreed but said that the insurance situation is still unsettled; he is still waiting to hear exactly what the insurance company will pay for. Regarding the significance of the building, Rummelhart asked, ifhe can say that all the banding within a quarter inch of all the dimensions on the building would be meticulously maintained, would it continue to be an issue. Weitzel responded that the Commission allows fiber cement board as a wood substitute, usually when there is significant rot, but it is somewhat at the discretion of the homeowner and Commission working out how to do it. He said this would, however, disqualify the project from any federal and state tax credits. Rummelhart asked about the emergency grants that are in the second round of funding. Weitzel said there is $65,000 left, and Rummelhart could qualify for up to $15,000 for that, which could be applied to the exterior of the building. Rummelhart asked if the front, public view has to be maintained historically with wood to qualify for that money. Weitzel confirmed this. Weitzel said that Rummelhart has a lot of things to consider. He suggested the Commission give approval, with enough leeway to choose between some different options. Weitzel asked if anyone had a strong opposition to approving fiber cement board as an option. Toomey said he strongly disagreed with using fiber cement board as an option. Carlson said he also strongly disagreed, if the present wood is not strongly deteriorated, and it does not seem to be. Weitzel agreed that the majority of the wood siding seems to be in good shape. Ponto stated that he would prefer that the wood siding be maintained with the bad sections patched in. Toomey said that most of the damage on the building cannot be replaced with cement board anyway. Swaim asked if, because of the changes in the roofline, the State Historical Society might not consider this house eligible. Weitzel said he doubted that, because it was a rooming house for a period of history, and that use would be considered historic, given the tie to Iowa City's history and to this neighborhood. Rummelhart said that one other issue with this house is that of lead abatement. Weitzel suggested that Rummelhart get a booklet from the Housing and Urban Development Department that deals with lead paint safety. Weitzel said that Rummelhart would have to deal with lead whether he peels off the wood or replaces it. Rummelhart said that if he stays with the wood siding, he would be going back to bare wood, because he is looking for durability and longevity. Weitzel said that one could use a surface cleaner with a hose attached and vacuum it into hepa-bags. He said that if the siding is peeled off, there will be breakage, dust, and paint chips going everywhere. Toomey said that lead paint is very durable and that very rarely does it have to be taken off. Gunn said that he would like to get a closer look at the house and the condition of the siding. He asked Rummelhart ifhe would be amenable to tabling this application to the next meeting. Terdalkar told Rummelhart that it would give him time to consider the tax credits and other options. Rummelhart added that he hoped to hear from his insurance company in the next few days. Weitzel said it would be instructive for people to look at the house close up and get a better sense of the condition of the wood. Terdalkar said that he would research the lead abatement issues before the next meeting and check into the difference between peeling off the wood versus stripping the paint off. Weitzel asked Rummelhart ifhis insurance settlement would impact his choices about what he wants to do. Rummelhart said it impacts his decision to a degree. He said the insurance company has already said it does not 10 have a problem with the fiber cement board. Rummelhart said there are also some things involved with the sale that impact his decision. Weitzel suggested that may be reason enough for Rummelhart to postpone this until he actually owns the house. He said it sounds like the Commission is split between people for and against fiber cement board on this project. Weitzel said there is a possibility that they will change their opinions after looking at the house. Rummelhart said he would like to have the Commission take a vote to see where the issue stands. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application of fiber cement board to the entire exterior of 714 College Street, with trim to be reworked to match the existing trim. Rummelhart asked ifhe could use fiber cement board for the trim also. Ponto said that some of the trim is not available in appropriate dimensions of fiber cement board, so obviously that part of it would have to be wood. Swaim seconded the motion. Weitzel said that restoring the wood would probably be less expensive than taking it all off and installing fiber cement board. He said that patching the small rotted areas should not be a substantial increase to the total cost. Weitzel cautioned against a rush to put fiber cement board on. He asked if Rummelhart really wants the fiber cement board over the wood. Rummelhart said that he knows some of the pluses and minuses of each and has a strong desire to maintain the building. Ponto said that he would vote against the motion, because the Secretary of the Interior Standards state that maintaining wood is the first priority. He said he has not seen adequate evidence of the destruction of the wood that would indicate that replacement is needed. Swaim said she would also vote against the motion. She said she has driven by the property and thought it looked good. Rummelhart said the guidelines do state that fiber cement board is allowed on a non-contributing structure. Terdalkar said that fiber cement board is not disallowed, as such. He said that a determination has to be made as to whether it is an appropriate substitute for the wood that is there. Toomey stated that without the aluminum on it, it looks a whole lot more contributing than it did before. Terdalkar said the reason it was determined to be non-contributing was because of the change in the roofline, the addition on the back, and the siding. Weitzel said that this building was a rooming house in the 1930s, for which it would probably still have significance. Terdalkar suggested there be a motion to table the application now that the vote appears to be going in a negative direction. Weitzel said the advantage to waiting would be if people determined that the wood is so deteriorated that it has to come off. He said that while the guidelines allow for discretion between fiber cement board and regular wood, people are saying that they would rather, in this situation, preserve the wood if at all possible. Weitzel said that since there isn't evidence of significant damage to the wood, the majority seem to be leaning toward voting down fiber cement board. Rummelhart asked, if the guidelines say that fiber cement board is acceptable, doesn't the Commission have to allow it. Ponto said the guidelines recommend, "To maintain the existing wood siding and replace the deteriorated sections with newer, salvaged wood siding that matches." Weitzel said that in this case, because people are citing why they want to preserve the wood, the Commission is okay on this. Rummelhart asked if the guideline cited refers to contributing or non-contributing or both. Weitzel said there is not a siding exception for non-contributing properties in a historic district regarding siding. He said there are some exceptions for non-contributing, but siding is not one of them. Weitzel said the only exceptions apply to non- contributing properties in conservation districts, but the exceptions do not apply to anything in a historic district. 11 Gunn said, regarding wood substitutes, the last sentence of the paragraph states, "In many applications, fiber cement board is an approved wood substitute." He said that when one takes into account trying to preserve the wood and the value of it and then fmishes it with, "In many applications, fiber cement board is an approved wood substitute," there is room to say no. Rummelhart asked then that the application be tabled for two weeks. Ponto stated that what it comes down to is that the guidelines are based on the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, the Secretary of the Interior Standards. He said that on page 73 of those standards it states, "Not recommended: replacing an entire wood feature, such as a wall, when repair of the wood and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing pieces are appropriate." WITHDRAWAL OF THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto withdrew the motion. MOTION: Swaim moved to table consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the application of fiber cement board to the entire exterior of 714 College Street to the Commission's next meeting. Toomey seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. OTHER: Weitzel asked about the demolition by neglect situation at 17 South Governor. Terdalkar said there has been some improvement in that some windows on the second floor have been boarded. He said he has asked Ian Reem to find out what has been done and how the owner has responded. Weitzel asked if Roffman has pulled a demolition permit and proceeded to demolish his building. Terdalkar said the building is gone. Weitzel asked about the chimney on the house at the comer of College and Dodge. He said there is a chimney cap there that will not allow a brick chimney to be built. Terdalkar said he did report that to HIS. He suggested that the Commission needs to make some kind of recommendation or petition to HIS to see what is going on with the chimneys. Terdalkar said there is also the issue of garages and sheds in the backyards of properties. Weitzel said that HIS issued a permit, but the Commission hasn't reviewed anything for that property. Terdalkar agreed. He said the Commission could make a blanket statement for these kinds of changes - that they have to be reviewed, perhaps on a case by case basis because of how the chimney relates to the significance of the structure. Weitzel said he would suggest a follow up on this. He said he thought the ordinance gave the Commission review over work that HIS recommends or even stipulates, and even in the case of safety, the Commission is supposed to have a chance to look at the historic preservation of the structure. Terdalkar suggested that the Commission submit a petition to ask for action or a report on what is going on. Weitzel asked if anyone disagreed with that course of action. Michaud asked for clarification. Terdalkar said there are a lot of chimneys that have been removed or demolished without being repaired, as well as outbuildings that have been demolished with permits. He said that no action is being taken in these cases, so that would be a question for Housing Inspection Services. Weitzel added that there is a provision to review the action of HIS when it takes action without Commission review. Weitzel said that in the Gazette's Advertiser, there was an article about the historic models that kids built for Weber days. He said the models include I-houses, soddies, log cabins, and some of the bigger buildings in town. Regarding the National Trust grant, Burford said that at the last work meeting the Board took no action about setting up additional requirements for the grant. Weitzel asked if Burford could compile a list of properties for the next meeting of properties that to which they are planning on giving a grant. Burford said that a homeowner has to apply for the grant money. 12 Terdalkar said he has three or four applications, two of which are for tree replacement, so that is why he needs criteria for selection. Burford said she believed after the last meeting that there were already guidelines. Terdalkar said the National Trust has given money, saying that the Secretary of the Interior Standards should be followed, but there are no selection criteria. Burford said the application specifies that this is gap funding for historic restoration. Weitzel said he believed that would exclude trees. Gunn showed the results of the tests on Mirra-Tech, the material that he froze to ten below and dried for ten cycles. He pointed out that the material is still in good shape. Weitzel said it is made of wood and resin. Terdalkar said he posed questions about this material to a list server on the National Trust forum list. He said he had a response from a community in Missouri that approved the material on non-contributing structures or outbuildings. Terdalkar said when the community's commission has approved a wood substitute, it has approved it for a testing period on outbuildings and non-contributing structures. Terdalkar said there is not a deadline for deciding about this project. He suggested the Commission come up with a procedure and criteria for approval of any new materials. Carlson asked if this material would be for siding or for other applications as well. Terdalkar said that it is to be used just for trim. He said he would .find merit in using this on non-contributing structures or phasing it in as the Commission finds appropriate. Weitzel said that he was willing to approve this new material. Gunn and Carlson agreed. Terdalkar added that the material is factory primed. Michaud stated that there needs to be some good alternatives. Terdalkar asked ifthere is enough information to say this is a good product. Weitzel said it is apparently the consensus of the Commission that modem wood is not that great ofa product in any event. He asked if the Commission wanted to give Terdalkar a couple of weeks to do some more research. Gunn said it is one thing to approve a product and another to recommend it. Ponto said that the guidelines state that the substitute material must maintain the appearance and function ofthe original wood and must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Commission. Terdalkar said that an architect from Cincinnati who responded to his list serve question mentioned that the adhesive used in these materials may corrode the nails. He said that therefore coated nails would need to be used. Weitzel asked if anyone was opposed to approval of this material as a wood substitute. MOTION: Gunn moved to take up consideration of the Mirra-Tech material from the table. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve Mirra-Tech as a substitute material for above grade applications on a case by case basis. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Terdalkar said that construction would begin on McCollister Boulevard, which will also involve a bridge over the river, during the 07/08 fiscal year. He said that there is to be a committee to design the bridge, and Public Works has asked if anyone on the Commission would want to be involved in that work. Gunn said he would be willing to sit on the committee. Terdalkar said the first meeting is to be held in early August. OTHER: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte == = .... ~ ~ 's El"O = - u 8 ==~ .S ~ I,C) .....~= ==== ~ = N ~"O ~ == ~ ~ loot ~< .... - = ..... ~ .... == I- te I I I I I I ~ >< >< >< 0 I I I I I I = I I I I I I f'l te I I I I I I ... 0 >< >< r:: 0 I I I I I I = I I I I I I M I I I I te I I ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< \D I I I I I I = I I I I I I l(l I E8 I I I I I te Si >< >< >< ~ >< >< in I I I I 0 I I I I = I I I I I I I I ... I te I I I I I I I ... >< >< >< -- l(l I 0 I I I I I I I = I I I I I I I I ..., I I I I I I I I S2 >< >< >< >< l(l I I I I I I I I = I I I I I I I I l- I I I I I I I I t:! >< >< >< ..., I I I I I I I I = I I I I I I I I f'l I I I I I I I I ... I >< >< >< ~ I I I >< ~ I I I I I I I I = I I I I I I I I \D I te ~ I I I I ... I >< :>< >< >< :>< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< M I I I I I = I I I I I 0\ I I I I I ... I ~ >< >< >< >< >< ~ I I I 0 >< -- ... I I I I I = I I I I I rJ> ~ 00 I- ~ I- 00 \D 0\ l- I- 0\ 0\ 0\ ~ 00 E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .- 0\ ~ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ....~ -- -- M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M .. = e ~ " .. ;... Q. e ~ = ..5! "Cl C " = .. ~ ~ t- 'e .. -; = "il .. = c = " " t: e ~ = rJ> ~ = ,li\l u ,li\l ~ .s " '; e '" .tl ~ ~ 'i: c " y y "Cl ,li\l C '" 'Ql ~ " .. " -= = ~ ~ i .. = y ~ c 'Ql = u ~ " c ~ ~ ~ = fiIil =- =- ~ E-o Z r.J ~ ~ ..; ~ ~ ~ ~ ..; ..; ~ r.:i ~ ..; ~ "'0 Q) .... = OIl Q) u~.o x.;::l S %l ... <:ooZ: