The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-12-2006 Historic Preservation Commission IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, October 12, 2006 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J Harvat Hall 6:00 p.m. REVISED AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda 3. Items of Consideration A. Certificate of Appropriateness: (deferred applications) 1. 1141 E. College Street B. Certificate of Appropriateness: 2. 834 N. Johnson Street 3. 903 E. College Street 4. 519 S. Summit Street 5. 26 E. Market Street 6. 721 E. College Street 7. 934 Iowa Avenue 8. 830 E. College Street C. Minutes for September 14, 2006 and September 28, 2006 meetings 4. Other 5. Adjourn '. '\ A~lication for Historic Rev~w 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 Gty H~loric Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City H.II or online .t www. kgov.orgIHPhandboak. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursd.y of e.ch month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Mond.y the week prior to the meeting. ~:t~t:~b~~ted .......1..:ILj~a0....,...,......... g.,Certificate of No M.teri.1 Effect va Certificate of Appropriateness CI M.jor review o Intermediate review Cl Minor review Applicant Information (Ple.se check prim.ry contact person) IiV"Owner ..,....5tAtv......,.v.An..""r.:.~wlL"....... Phone...............5Q3...:B,~."".~....~..~............................ Address ....,.......lCAo.lA...G~"...1.~..5Z:t~........ ...........,..........................................................................,............,..... em.il....".....,...,..s.~ud.~,@...A.P..I..,.C"O.M........,.... CI Contractor .....I2w~r.::........................."......,................ Address ..............."........,.............................................,......,......,..,. ...............................,......................................................................... Phone.,.......,...,......................................,..,..........,...,....................... email................................................................................................ CI Consultant ......S.II..&.....,1..:a,c..ht,..,......,......................... Address .. ........................................................................................ .......................................,................................................................. Phone.............................................................................................. .........................................".."..".,..."..........".................................., email.........,........"................."....."..............................."................. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Ill- Site pi.n CI Floor pl.ns ~Building elev.tions P-i'hotogr.phs [J Product information CI Other ................. ,... ................................ ......................... If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to a,n existing structure, please submit a sit. pl.n, floor pl.ns. building elev.tions .nd photogr.phs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure. ple.se provide dr.wings .nd 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 .........834...^'.....J.bk.ns~..SI!:..:... ................,.."..".............."...........................".............................................. Use of property.., ...........,:Ke$itle..-:h....I................................... D.te constructed (if known)...l.84:.:7.........................................., Historic Designation Q This property is a local historic landmark OR CI This property is located in the: liI"'""Brown Street Historic District Cl College Green Historic District Cl East College Street Historic District CJ Longfellow Historic District Cl Summit Street Historic District Cl Woodlawn Historic District Cl Clark Street Conservation District CI College Hill Conserv.tion District Cl Dearborn Street Conservation District Cl Lucas.Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: lir'" Contributing o Noncontributing a Nonhistoric Project Type iW"1Ilteration of.n existing building (ie, siding .ndwindow replacement, skylights. window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) CI Addition to .n existing building (includes decks .nd r.mps) CI Demolition of. building or portion of. building (ie, porch, chimneys. decorative trim, baluster or similar) o Construction of new building Cl Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance CI Other... ,....::::.....,...,.., ..............................,............... ..................,.... r \.../ J r Project description ::::::::::::::::::':::'.:::::::::::~,:~~::~i~:Ji:~:::~~~~+\:~~:::::~:::p;~~:::::::::::::::::::'::::::::::::::::::::.....:......:..:..:.,::...,.......,....:.,......:'.....: ,..............................,......."........."..............................................,.....,."...,....,............................................"..........................,,........",.".................."................. ............................".~.....~va..j;~.:....Ab~ic,n~.......lq~O.~.s".aMi:lil.l.!:I...::l:o..."moCL......................,,, ..................."............'\o::..ell.r.~W\b\.c....4he............:J.u:\",1....bo~f...lr...:.l\l,d~......A............................,... ........."..................~..j;,.C'O...O\lU...:Ut.e..~{....cb:i..:..........................................."......................,...."........"................... .....,...................................................,.................."............,..................................."...".................................,...........,........."...........................,...".."..,........,... ................................,...............,.........."..................,...........,...,.............,.."...,..,...,....,...........",..,....,..,...........,...,.....,..........,..,...,.......,...."..............,................,' .....,..............................................................................,...,....................,.................,...,...,...,...,.....................................,.....".,...."..,'..".............,....................... ...........,..........."..........,..,.......,....,............."...,...................,..............,......,......,........................."..,...,....."..",.............,.....................".................,...,..."......,..... .....,......."..........."..,.................................,................",..."..."..".,..,..."..................,.,.........,..."....................................,...,..".,............,.............."........,............. .............,........,...........................,............................,...............................................,......"....................,................................,......,.... ..................,...................,..............................................,.............................,.............................................,.....,........,........................ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Materials to be used ........,.."..,......................."..........,...,................................",.....".......,..............."........"......"."....,...,............",.........,......,..............,..............................."......., ..................................:fi~.....GJ.~.n"..,.............,.....................................................................................,......................... :::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::~~:7~~~~~~l:~::~::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.::.::::::::.:::::.:::::::::::::::::'::.:::.::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::':::::::::::::: ".....................,.....................".........."".......".............................."............,.",......"............,,,....................."..................",.........,......".............,........................ ..........."............"..................................................................".."......,..,.......".........",.......,.........."...............".....................,..........................,...........".......".... .,................................,.............................................................................,.,.............................,......,.........".,.....,.............................,. .....................................................................................................,..,..................,..................,.......................................................... Exterior appearance changes ........................,..........,......."."..........................,........."........,.",,,,..,...,.....,..............,......,...,........................."......,,,,..................,..........."................................ .....".............................rlP(t.....dO'20e.~...,~ble.....4k..,,~....cb:c.o............lqOO....................... .........",........,.........."......".....,...,..................,...."....""....."..........,."..........................,......................."..........,....."........."....."...,....."........................,............. .................................................................................,.......................................................".............................................................. ..............,....................................................,..........................,.......,.....,.,.................,..................,............"...............................,..,..,. ...............,........".......................................,..............................................................."...,.........................................................."...... .............,................,.......,........"...........,.........,................"......,......,...........,..............,....................,....,..,.".,...,.....,......,........,......,..,. ..........................."....................,...............,....................................................................,.........,........................................................ ..........................,..,..............,...............................................................,."..,..............,...................,........,.....,.................................... ...............,................,................................."..............,...........................".,,,............................................................................,,,...... .,.............."...............,....................................................................................................................................................................... pPdadm/HP HandbookJApp.p6S \ . ._,~ ~ ..\ ,\ - <, . . . . -'ll.. , \ \. ..># ... ,0 . , . ,- " . " . . ....... ::,;: .... ...,,~~ ./,' ~ .. , .,.# .- . .. ,.....,....,.., '. 0..-""'-1.., ... _",~, <i' C-,': " \. f.. #0'- ....' ............. ~ --. . .. ,- l.. 'I ,. :~: -.}; J 1 , ,. ~ ~t?:. I ..... A~' r }..f ~ ".. {-. .... ., . . ...".... } ." ,. \""r, .... .lIO --.' :., ",.,. . ~'- . ..,~ I .. .... .... .,...., " ,.;0, (J. /i; ""*!. _.t " ,... l- I 44~ ''/' -if.' ,.-;. ".. .' I it '..... ..~.. 4-" , .\-,..' .... ..t'~ ' " \.~. '.. .. ~'('.' ". '.- .. . , '.: 1'" ~' . " . ~~. 0 ,\ , , . r , ~ . 'oJ .j ; .t-,\ ;"'i ~. < .,.. ,. I . , " ~4- i: ,".. , '..~ ~ . . ....._,"! 'V" " . ~ -.'. .\. .f." . f,[..; " ; . -' '.., ,; . .~. ,~ , ~' .'. '0 . .~, {.~ " ,~ .,.-:----- I -----------.- .~ \\ /.. ~ ~ .' . ,;~<(..~~~..-..:.;: :.; ..:' =C. 'I . '.':..... '8<;1., -. ,..' "- . ''--.. ..<~ . "~I ''Z~..'JJ'\ ~ O! :.:; ,I ,w:b/.i-..fQl<, - ',II;f,CouJMJl.';1 1='0'1'~ ~~/A\.: _~'b~~ i I 1- L_______ 1 /W.'i. III rt 1.~I-<..j-'1 o. 1 ~AjJ "i-. I'-=""AC~_~ ., I ~.~~ _1'l<t'Ctl<i('. 1 :.~"" ~'\ll.lo.;JCOJl.. I 1 -:;: I ::- . I ---'- 'I -i;I>;J&W--~~~~- :1 ' I PGRCH n ---- . 'I: .....___~~-:-:;::~':I...:' "1 ..,--- ---.---....' ... : --;:'=:::::;c'c:c', ..1.: . ~I'tf'i""'. I . Y/llICK>yJ 1 . 1 I 1 I [-c- -~ i}(' \ 1 '9/4>V ~Ol-l&.l.ll=f.,.z} I -- i I ~UFC ~~~ 'I ~u.'F''''-1'i-''''1l'II/I'' I 1\\I'\I\il:\\''(,!iUl~~' : _ _ __1 ---1 I,:el; .,,;... I I t41 ~\J. -\,1' I=..1I I I I I I I .. ~ -z.. ~e:: ~0_. '~<'1!'f,"'" ~w.,t4fZ'''').; . :-l -----I . I " '; I ,,; I .14>~.-_rce.c:.A'l. \\, I ,..,. f/..- Y -:;;;:.:;:*.:~. I '. I DI:, ," .', I 1_1_ _ _ I I - -' - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -----'- .b=1:f" 10-.1 ,I.' . ", - A //Y /.y, ~/ "c- '." ". . ...d' .....~(>,.:- "" ~.:.o_::..:0L....:..:.:._C::J./;:: .. "-, .1.. '- ......... >- 1 y' ( . '\',' .~\ .. \ i/,' . J,e.. . . "..' '. I:" ....:. I' ~ : I\: I I '-fi i ~L I I 1 1 I _ .. L ~(I ~ r ,j I ~ I .;) " I 8 I ~ ,-~lh- H~ r: {'; ~*~ ~ II ~ ;;l 1 , \),, I '< I ~ ~ 3t ~ Q I I ~l ~ ' I i I .:i *\'0 ~ I ~' " i ~ _ . 1, I , '1- '~l ' r~~ll-I-~~At~ ~ I "'1 ! 1 ~-.,''-)'\1 , ~ 'I i I _-5- \ \ ,. U 11':' , .--" ,,\.'\ I !di I ='..' Q ~ 'I ,- . (1 I ~ '& I ,"~-O LJ t' ~ i~~! 111 c/"a t), , I w.~ ' u i . I 1 I ~~: \ 0 ; : Hill \ ~ ~ 1 ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~J: ~~i \'--... [) \J ~.~ d <! n "!i ~~: "! u ~ 1:Z '4 I' D ~ N, ~ I' 'j . 0,' -;..T"_ ~ -.;:: ~ r.:\i, J ..~ k.L,: CO \ l 'Ij' . i 1 !P, 1<:,;0 __ I>> !'D ___ ,I ~% 1 ,j.' li~ :___J 9 II " /" 0 _. i?;;!./ I -. ____ _~_ - _.1 /', ~.~ ~ ~~-.J LJ - r:, . ,/ .-1, "-" 1\ ) ~ <;:::, 2- ~ i 1\ \\ \ " - o - -- I' ! . .~u._."" _.-" l J I ii' I, 1 I 1\ I Ii~ In. ~_J .' .1>. j I v\.- :zl" . sV J--J . 'I -~ ~ ------ -r~-n,7. B II I1I1 ~.)':'~..~>~ , ~~~ 1~:{'? . Fy'h~.\' fii.,: '; f'" < 5 >~ ~ I: > !' 21d:IJ~ , " ~ j ,I ~ 1; . I I . r ! i i I.~: ,i I i i 1/ :, :1'(.: "l' /: -.----. i Ii /; I. ; :' '.I~l.' . i: :,L..". 'Ii~!\\~ :ii, i 11'1111...\.... 1,1.1 I ,t ~" I l Iii il' ri\\~: : I ". . 1'1' li:l! ..' ,. I ' ! 'I . ""11' " I I 'ii 1\- I,; I '''''11,111 :1 i:1 i ! II, ":I! Iii I :Ii! 1,1.., .'.!: 11:1 'I'" " " i.'1 il':j:,' :, ::j:: " [' ! '11;~i,: "j' ! . 1:: : .' .11 i rli 4 I": "- -- -- r -;_~ . 7..-.-;"...~,~;~. =.:.:.. -_.::,~~. -,j , )-~._.~JIG ..." '5\~ i ~"'d '-,-""...~ .. ~. I r [ I :~H >Lmm ...~ I..;, I' i-':I' . I: 31', I :r~:1 I ,,"~'01~ i i ~~ , iP., ! I' , ..~,f-'~.~~.} o A Ii Iii: ']' J:'I'il i "III' , I r ! I I I' " ,- ,& :'j , ~ I, r.0T.-~~~=~~ i I' l i id ..... i: , , . i ~ ~ '-=" = ~ ~ W d W :x: IJ= ::) F"'\ ~ U) i, '*~ I; ." :1'\\\ ~~ -t,;, . , '<< il i; ) ;f;: . " ,,1 ['" r' .1::; th ...1.' " , - _._--~! ---j'-' l! ~ " ".; 'k' " . \ "J ~! "'i .. ,I t"t-~ !I ;'~, :1 ~f} I . !. -tw 81,.i< l=H1'f..: [rip!l . j:' ~~ :!, \:: " ~' ~-lS :, ~~ : 61'" ~~'r , ..,.- I ~' ~'" I : i' Ii ~~ .1 '! ;' . ':----..,-- I! 'i Ii , " I, Ii i: I I. -..:...:..:-=---. rj" ...,~i. : '""~-=-,.~ -.-=-~; i . ," -..-.. ... !' l; Ii I \ : ~ , , \ ' \, \ \ \ " \ ,..-' ...._-_.._~_.- '\ " \ ' \ \ ' 'j \\ I I, 'j , ~ \ \ i I~ C-r==,=~~~ z .,=.. "-" t;' :>. w .,.J, lU , ~, J...: F !?VI =1 """""1 '="1 Z ~?'c::::::VU \JU U~?lU U \J U ~\.iV, IH! OJ!. IrjOU\1(jO!S~tJ 1\1JmO!S;~H 03S0dOtJd "J~ '\,' ~ ~ ~~ ~ t 8 ~~r.r 'j 11 ~ ~ 4 4 5~ H~ '23 0 . --~h :1~ ~'a f- t :z_:zHl ~- .:. - ..=r-;= LI':::- co;:::- : -i-r- , 1 i . I III'., ""[ I. Ii :, " ;' ! ,: ' - 1 1:1 I I; ~ , ~I 'j' J n ;' ~Jl i ~ 1 , ~ 1:: or '1 j.. > " ~ ~ I, ~ ;! :,' ~ ;: ~ I' I>> , " , , 1 ; I I i n U .. .---. -- I 1 , -3 c1\hr "\: 01 ' l;-~- ;(~~ ~ .,. 'i' I " [. .! .Jl' .- '~..' --i~--~Il_--.~ " ;~:-:. ,1',,--,----1 ; ~,I~I, , , I I'~.-':"" I tV "i,:,', _,I 01. ': "U ~I~ 2: ~ ~ ~ &=: ... -" ~I " ~ ~ ~.. "1 ~'i. ~$ -~E~ ~ - p~ ~;JA ~~* ~~\\ i . j " i- " '; ~4;,~-t4; :" , , I, I! Ii .,.1 I' ~ . ~ . ,~ ii~r ' ' ii i 1: 1 , ' I i " " I;; j,: I I , :" ~ ~~ P .-'\~ · i ~ '2 " .s, , . ~'15 ~~ -s~ 3! z~ Ii ! t .:! ,." ~& ,:t' il :; "I' ,'I. . ,I ( ~: .> LU .....!J W l- V/) .. , " " " o t ii !-~~H~ ,,_~~\-L I IWY"ttl ';,~ IJJ 111'11, 'I' Ji H~~ it !lk!!,il~~ ii, ; i :':I,\1~W! ,: I~~~: ~ ,-c-' ,""- I,{, ;~ i ! ,_~,_~ !~h' ~ I,' ,I I \l !II:!li " 'I" - -- '-" ~, '111111' 'I" I' ' L ,. Iii" ' ,I" 'i i I :':, III il ~ i I, "I I 11'1 f 0_: 11~~!il ~ ," ,-:--::0_ II, Ii: ~ , __ - - ~ i ~! I ; II Ii !'I!,III~!!!!,1 ~ 1\11 ,TfI'l~l~j , 1 I.. I 1'1t'"111 ' I ,I. IS:!: lq ',1'- i1\i11 i ;-1.-1-- d ~ l~il;_IL,:, ~ : I I t lj , t n I I '.1 II i ~ 3 ~ s ~ D- o o ;I ~ ~ Ii -~ \' "," <::l. ~~. o"Z"2'l ;;::t;:~ "::'3~2 .J,a~ ~ Staff Report October 12,2006 Historic Review for 834 N. Johnson Street District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Key-Contributing The applicant, Steve van der Woude, is requesting approval for a proposed project involving a porch restoration on the front fa~ade, a new addition portico on the west fa~ade, and other alterations on the house at 834 North Johnson Street, which is a key-contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The applicant intends to rebuild a front porch as seen in the photograph attached herewith. The applicant is also proposing to install a entry door on the west fa~ade and build a smaller porch (similar to a pedimented portico) to mark the entry. Two windows will be removed to install the entry door and the porch. The applicant further intends to reduce the porch overhang on the west fa~ade relocate the porch columns. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations, 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Addition, and 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition. Staff Comments This Greek Revival house was built in c. 1850 according to the Site Inventory Form. The house is commonly known as 'Prospect Hill' and was the residence of Hugh Downy, who was an attorney and a member of the first Board of Trustees of the State University ofIowa. But several other records provide conflicting information regarding the architect, the first owner, and the actual date of construction. It is said to have been designed by John Rague, architect of the Old Capitol (not confirmed). The house was built with a classical portico with fluted Doric columns and full entablature. The northern wing of the house was built with full-length porches with classic columns on either side. This portion of the house has been significantly altered. Despite many alterations the original form of the house has been maintained. The applicant is proposing to rebuild the front porch to match the original. The work proposed on the west fa~ade would result in one of the columns being located directly adjacent to an existing window. The proposed columns spacing would be in with the symmetry usually evident on the Greek Revival buildings. Staff recommends that the column spacing be revised to provide a more appropriate juxtaposition of the elements on the structure. The proposed rake/ overhang on the west fa~ade does not match with the rakes on the house and staff is also concerned that the depth of the proposed rake/overhang will not be sufficient to provide adequate protection to the columns. Staff recommends that the applicants should thorougWy explore alternatives to accommodate the entryway, the pedimented portico, other openings such that it would be compatible with the style of this revival style house. ',.../ --1 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 Dty Historic Preservation Handbaak, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at www. icgav.argIHPhandbook. 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~~ted ....P'::2!..Z:..7/!.!{p.:...... o S:ertificate of No Material Effect \...E:I"'" CerJ.ilitate of Appropriateness ~ Major review Cl Intermediate review D Minor review Applicant Information . (Please check primary contact person) """', ~ Owner .:1.tv.r.!~~..P~.................................. Phone...3Vt::::J'1t~.1.LJ:!a.............................................. Address ..'Xl3....~...\S.~~..~'C............................... ......\~.c.lt.y....................~........................................... email.~~.~.~\~.L...... Cl Contractor ................................................................................ Address .......................................................................................... Phone............................................,......,....................."...,............... email................................................................................................ o Consultant ................................................................................. Address .......................................................................................... Phone.............................................................................................. email.................................................,.............................................. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: o Site plan o Floor plans o .Jtrllding 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 ....993.....~:..~.\\~.?.t:.................... .......\~..~..........................m.............................................. Use of property ...................................................................................... Date constructed (if know~"..\Q............................................. Historic Designation o This property is a local historic landmark OR o This property is located in the: Cl Brown Street Historic District '-E College Green Historic District o East College Street Historic District l:l Longfellow Historic District [J Summit Street Historic District l:l Woodlawn Historic District o Clark Street Conservation District '[J College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District (J Lucas.Governor Street Conservation District Wi~e district, this property is classified as: ~ Contributing (J Noncontributing l:l Nonhistoric Project Type CJ Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement. skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, b~luster repair or similar) CJ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. ~rch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) ~~ ~~ ~ o Construction of new building CJ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance o Other .............................................................................................. v '-..J Project description ........................................................................................................................................"...........................................................".............................................. .....~.\..\.'TI.~....r5f::.....\)N...=\?~'Ej).......5..\:\:e:O.\~.~~J\eL~.v.......................................................... :::::~~~::~~~~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::N::p.r:::6:e.d~C:::::::::::A:~::::::g::::\~:bi::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... :::::::::G;:~~;;,)::~:~:::::::..:::....~~:~~:::~:::::{il:\~:~:::~~::::q;.::\::~:~:t:f::::::::: .................... ... . . ..... . . ... . ...D,r.0.......A.........~N~ere.-..s.l"A~........................... ............................................1........................................................................................................................................................................................................ \7~10 - g'~. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Materials to be used :::::::::::~:NE:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...................................................................................,........................................................,..................,................................".................,.."..,.................,..,..... ..........,....,...........,..,...".....................,..........................,......,................"......................,............................,...,...............................................,....."...,.............,.,.... ..,.....................,..".........,......",.......,.........,..........,.,.........,..............,......................."..................................................,..,...................,......"..,................"............. ......,.............................................".....,.,....................,...........................................,......"..,..............,...,..................,........,......................,...,...,..,..........,..,..,.."..... .........................................................'................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes ..............................................................nT...............~Tl..........f~;..................................................................................................................... ...........W.~~..~\~~:...Mn...........\.Y.>>L..... .....\..')...~..~....05.iAO.\1i~...~'(:0~\"................ ............\t.)~..~..W.\t\0..;...........................................................................................................................................................1\.............. ::~:~:~::::\:~~:::::~~~:~:::::~::~~::::~:::::~k~:~::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................................................,..................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................................,..................................................... ppdadmlHP HandbooklAppp65 ~~yth-~t ;i:i-~~'''' ':t'" ~ -'P" .J.... ~ ~ t VI ~ :sJ.. ~ -l Staff Report October 12, 2006 Historic Review for 903 E. College Street District: College Green Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Timothy Light, is requesting approval for a the demolition of a bob-shelter located at back of the house at 903 East College Street, which is a contributing property in the College Green Historic District. The applicant has partially demolished the structure. Ap.vlicable Regulations and Guidelines: 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments The house on the property was built in c. 1915 with Vernacular architectural style. This one of the houses built by architect O. H. Carpenter. The 'bomb shelter' was built c. 1960 with corrugated steel sheets and had no exterior features. As per the guidelines, a demolition proposal of an outbuilding is to be reviewed on case-by-case bases, considering the condition, integrity and architectural significance of the structure. The footprint for the shelter measured approximately 16 feet x 16 feet and it was approximately 8 feet tall. The applicant intends use the floor of the shelter as a patio. Although architecturally this structure is in compatible with the main house, it may have some historical significance as a cold war era structure. J J Application for Historic Re~iew 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.orglHPhandboak Meeting scheduie: 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 meeti ng. ~~t~r~b~~ed .....t?.':::>..!.2!!J.J.~(i........ o ..);ertificate of No Material Effect ~ Certificate of Appropriateness ~ Major review o Intermediate review o Minor review Applicant Information (Pi ease check primary contact person) ~ Owner $.Jtgtlt.1..Md~J.NI\~.~O.~itY..\.l?:lS~!~f"e.. Phone.......~.\q).....k:'..3.L::.O',s:s:.~..................................... Address .....51.(1....SD..V.T.H..$.!,:\M.~.\T...<;;T.~.f..~.c.... ....................J:oW..fi...C,ITVt.J;.A..:..H?,,'f..O.................... email....5mc@,.laa...r.J;;e.r.~r.!:mf.!::\:!::.?:.~~m. o Contractor ....,RlC.""'...:t:l::Ia.M:P.5aN......................... Address ......~.3.D.z......lsn~.~....$:t;a.E..~r.:................... ........................r.A:.I..aNA,..r..A....5..n.'i..7................ Phone ...........@.\~.)....f?:~.O'.~..s::.Cj..7..I.............................. email.,...........,....................................,............................................. o Consultant................................................................................. Address ................................................ .......................................... .,......."..,.............................,.......................................".................... Phone.............................................................................................. ...................,...,...........................,..............,....,..............,.................. email..........,,,..........,,...........................................,........................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: o Site plan )lll. Floor plans fI 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 .....2..tS...,?o.Y.IH..;?..yJ\(H.tT...$.J.q;.~ T ..........................................~tl.ft...~.t!.y,.:;r.D..ti.f.\.....$.2.?:c.'f D Use of property....$..tN.H.~....:f.r.\..\:M.!,.Y....~.I:Y.~.L.:~.!.~ f.. Date constructed (if known) ......Lq..o..~........................................... Historic Designation o This property is a local historic landmark OR o This property is located in the: o Brown Street Historic District o College Green Historic District o East College Street Historic District o Longfellow Historic District ~ Summit Street Historic District o Woodlawn Historic District o Clark Street Conservation District o College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District o Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District W~the district, this property is classified as: ~ Contributing o Noncontributing o Nonhistoric Project Type o Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) M Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) ~ Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch. chimneys. decorative trim, baluster or similar) o Construction of new building o Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance o Other .............................................................................................. I "--' v M>f>f770N 51 q SOU7t-l~UMAU ,ro r; Project description ~.~...J.&n:.Ec.r.......:!.tO.~.~.Sl<E.s;....E5.:f..t\:N\:>..I.N.(".....:&.N..1)....\I..?!).i1:l1f.:.1..b...::ntE...$.i\lA::&.~....t.;.m;':t"l~lJ ..Jb.....A.C.CD.MO'D.k:IT......~...N.'E..iS{)..$.......(\.:\;....A.....6.gQ..w.L.N..,f,....~tl.,,;y........l.N...ft:'r>.t.l'I10N / ....A:......~.\J..D..\e.:OC>M...AN..l>.....:B.~.M......'1.:(lk.\.,.;.....:E1\l.t+ANC~...l1:f:lS......lJSE:AB..U..",,(J:Y........ ..6f:...::ntES.P..&Ck.............................................................................................................................................................................................. '"::ANOT.t:t'.Ete......~~.w..1:..J;......td>.t:>..ln.D..N......r.J.t~.l",...~..E-...)).EMD.l.l.S.l:ft.D....+:NJ>.....~A5?.~.. ..71.tt:.T.....Cl.F......~....N.ff.W....N)t?mQN................................................................................................................................... ~...1.N'J:ERlCI.~...l;.&.S.ls.Mk.NT.........5..'I:fr.UsS......W.l.kh..Nl:.E.Q...:JD...1?~....I-!Iov.~O..:::7.0.................... ....:~:'~:g,M1T....np.:Aj~.s:..1.Q.N....DE..~..f:;;.tT.<;t+..EN..,........................................................................................... -....A....'E.Aa......~IDOP../Y.~~H.....W..U...L...B.~...~.N.c.W.s.E..Q...:ts}\..D....:M?.~.~....O'.N..rn....,... _ ::A...W.LND.Q..w....5.E.,tr..I........W.l.J..,.k.....:B.:IZ......l:'\b.D.ED......l.N.'k1.t?:e.....:ntE....s.Q.~ni..1SftY...'(Y].1Yfx:r.n/ -:..&...Y.RlE..l.I...\O...U.S.......frK.p.k..l.CfrnO.N.........W..r.\S....S..l.\..~.M.t.rr..t;..D.........~.P...R..t..!",......\.3.+..~.O'.6~........... W..D...~$.........L~......^......s.:.c..A:t.J~,]?.....J>..a.w.N.......Y..]?.,.€-S..lDN......O'...E.....+ttM:................... 1\Y..~J.:J.~t\'D.oN..\...:r:tt'E...ffiP.,J:Ecr.....wA.$......:t\::P..~Q.v.E.~.)".................................................... ........................................,.......................................................................,........................................................................................... Materials to be used -..E:x.1S..llN.<l1......M..ltrERLM.f.....~..\.kl,,;...~.~...g.f.t:1rJ::I.-l;;..O..,..................................................................................... ...,..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................,.. ,......................................................................................................,............................................................................................................................................. ...............................................................................................................................................................................................,..............,...................................... ............................,..........................................................................................................................................................................................,............................. .............................................................................................,....................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes - .S.r.fr.:Cg,$......Th...J:H:E......B.A::~.~M.~.....Y.VJ.l,,4....f?.E,.MLl.v..b-D.N.E.a.H.l.'tz!d1.N..~.....t:\.............. ...M..o..D.l.r;f..cA:nCN.....P..F...7.f::f:fZ.....'SO.IJ.rH.~.gN....~.tE,~(Q.tf:,...0J.fr1.d......ID.ME1E.c....e.P..P..E....... - .1J:fE..sD..Llr::H......i5..&y....0.(.I.{Y.D.tJ.lr.V.....V':!..!..k.Sc......B.lj6o.~J:;,.....7.D....'H...A:t:E......................... ...~....'P..g,.&c;n.c..A-:k.....u..~..Ettfi),..CE.....JP.ll::a;......I.NS.L.D.~...Wf.N.P.ll..W.$...v.:I.l.k.~........ ...li.'E,....UEJY.G...~D...f.tY....~!.N..~....w.C[H...w.f.@O.VJl.S......gU;E.lVJ:fE~I............. -:.~...'Em...w.Q,.,..J:).s'EJ)...EIl:'eu..'Ef?..t.l1>.D.l..n.(;f:./....f:1(?U.~.~..~u.,s.i>%.{)...?fNt> ..../.N.TE...&.f?fl.!.J:Ji;..D .I.w::IT?.TiHE....I...Jt:f~[!).fiC..&...f.r:'P../).t:r.r.(J.N:..'................ ............................ ...... .................. -:..'I1tJt:.....v.:Y.ESr....Bfr.U;;...,op.~..FQ./?,Ct.I/"$..'mO'P.....wl.~?c..bE....LNJE.C;~...!..6IJD ....~..ft::"f::?]),L.T.l.Q.N.......................................................................................................................................................... -:-.W.l./Y..b.o..W..S....f.N...TttE.......E.ft:CJ::...Q.F.HCE....N:o.W..F.t4ct.MG....0fE.s:.r....W.f.fb...1?.(;....~~utD ...7ZI..::rr.flf..,.f.:.o..lITH.......;?:!..'P..€:............................................................. ............................................................................ - '{il1E-p:p,v~~S O~ ~;V2:W ItPDCTWN ~ 5#<JwAl oN ~pdadmlHP H"dbooklAppp65 1; t:/tYV I N (, . ..- : i , ~ : ~'L.., \ ~ " ~~~ . . ,~ ! \ / ..p+~#-i? ;' ----p/. ~N / ..--::::::- .,-P? O;? o..,L ~ , #-'" .,..........- - _.~.-.- -.ffJ..~.;;,,'%..__: -~L '':.tj. '>,- ',i-J 0-", .' .~ ~ '>< .....'% 'I .~~ j~ . ~ t. .,.. 'V_. . ~ ~ i ( t ( I I I , , . ~ ..i~ I' ~~ ..'; . l' )\lj CJ . , 1 ZI . - .......... ...J !2.. . '-!. " ~. . ~' ~ .~ ... 0,'" ~ u;; f) '1 .... - i:). . ," .,.9 ~"':'"'_~_ ....~,~ ...... "~-' ,.~.-.. . -~ - ..-.... T1 .~ -f:' . , ~"I ,~.;t.,.,...\. " /... " C', . . .'-' ..,' ... . . . , " .1........ \. ..\ \. ......;. ': ~. , c :.1. : 1 ~ . . . > /-~ .' I' '. ; ':; f .~" r . .00' .' mlTl 11 'r'll: ,-\ - . . .' ~'4"'. , ,. .\ \ , , .' . . \J~ " --.L.J ! , . i : \ >J. . UJ . '-J ~ ..:. :,\ "W ~ - . , .- ~ t- ~ \11 U1: J' UJ ~ .\ ,.. ; 'Bi" :. I: " I, . " .~ ~ ,- 't " ~ ~ c, " " .-.. .'- - , ~ - : il-- '::Fl . I 101 I~" .;, ~ l~ > I~I :1 . I I ~~ __ _!i' ',I UJ - _-J..:/ "" \\ "., .....'Y . ...... --.l W-'" .::-!\\ , , ~ '.. .: -=-- CD DO ,-. , I ..,..... . ~ ~: ~ .; of, : \!fI :=):" I .,," ! ~'! ...;.;, , (j), "' ' " .,:. ,_ ,.' I . . ......."'......... .. ' I .IW " ,\ ' _. . ..;'. '1."0:: . . .. .' .....-. ...-4W-."l..~~... . ,. ii' /'~' 'i . \ ~/' '" ... 4\ -l. l-W -=l: ~ () Z f / ) ""'I- --- t' I -1Jt I/! Ii Ii I J: ;! ; I: j 11 ....m __ __." ._H ! I j (I i !:! i Ij II II j 1/, I I I I I ill I" ,I,. I, iil i il" 'I ' Ii I 11 -ll[1 r I II II! I ~!ili: '1'1 I I ! "II!! 111 I I I I ;! I" I Iii! I I' I j .' ill m !I:'I! II ....t 1-1+1111 iJ II u~ I I ! II, I ----' ~~ - I ~ i III ~ ! i I ,fill I 'III II I I ! Ii j' i I ! II ! I II I' I I - I , I I II! TIll i 'Ii/ I II I I"i!! II I i I i I! II II;! III 11 ! III i! ! i! I ! j I If I -r '----' , I ! i ! ' I I .. I ! i Ii' i j i I!;!: I l'IIJi;i i I ' " ' .. I I i! i Iii I! i III i i i ,II i II! 'T"ilil I'I I i Ii, Ii: i T !llll ! I II! II i j! i I i I I i I! r!; ! ITI "i'll i I I I i ! ! 1 I I ! I I" i I I ~ I T II!!: --~-rl ill i I II: i I I II " r ! 11111' ! ill ;! Ii:! ! i I I I - 1-- --1- - ,1- I ~ 1 I I ',-' i I! III Ii !!! i I III I . ;,: II I .-!>d /-Jl~ 1 , ! 1 " {, i < c., , ~ ~ ~ ~ f.., { l ~ ~ I 'J i ~ <, , 't ~ '" '" I' , .., '~i .~ C' ....."CD ~1il"'!'U' af CD 1- C u:;,.... ~ f; U)v..2~ Cz ~-C") OalO~'I!;t ~U"J<cb;v E r_""r) o~mo~ .c ('l) r: C') co 1-'" 010_ ~ ~S~_ U' ...~ ~i' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i::l ] - ~ ~t t "'" :J -E- g V) fillII] !I',lilll!'!! II T""t' i i i ill I' i Ii' i I ::: I I, 1::1111110"" ':'111'1 'i ,,' 1'1" I' . :: ii' i! ! 1,1 I I : ! I : ,! I' " .! j; I! I" I j' I'" ~: ,I II:; i I i Ii i i I ! i i i 11\11 i I I' i i I 1'1' ! I' ,'I ,I j I , ! : I 'i; IJ I II I III Ild!~! J ","",' 1- 1 :!: i;' i j ;.i; I !; i 1\ : " i I Ill, ! ill! i j i j Ii , ! I' " , :, I Ii 1 . I I," I '! IIi ,I "I 1!-1,,-H,' -' i! I ! I ; r II! 1,;11 I: I ,: ,:1 , "' , ' , ; ,I II , il I: I" ! 11 I! Ii I,!, 'I Illi , i I.' 1,1 :1 ::! ! I ii, j: :1 :' " !i I II I' I[ I ',11, fill H . jthilh,i i'l ....../ 11 i Iii I! II !, I-,! I, ! Ii; ~ I "'I" '" I I ; i : ~ ] j Ii II'! I ii, " ,r! I I I I I ill' ' , II I ii,' 1 I ill 'i III I ' i! I! I: I i I! ill! II1I i~'T II" I' I ! .11.L ~ I I I I I ' I i -1H v i\ " ' I': II,! ,I I" I'! I! 'I II I i Ii', I : I ' i:; j I I" I I : i! , ,,, ! I I Ii , I l'li . i " ~~ I ~ I !. , III'; I I ' ,I 'I I 1,' i I I'll : I 1 1 I II I I' i' J , ,,' i I I' :! Iii' ! I' ,i ,I, I Ii, I iJ-'-I' ![III ! I , ._, ,.' I ' ," 'I' ,+t ~, , I' '. .:.! t - 1~- " 11 \ I! ! "j j ! 11 ~ I I-~d ~ =tt ,( 1 ~ ~ , ,- .. '- ~ ~ '- I(J ;V) ;) ~ : ~ ,,; , ~ ~ ~ ",l, 1;' ~ c ...~ _-110-'" _". ~-C) e-~lI'Il:l,5' t'UmCD-C ,''\ 1M I CIS!J) V _r--. u > c~~g..~"' o ~ C\l ~, rt) 01.0..... ,I a.l(') '4:""" " E....-Q)({ It) , o g: ~o~ .cC")o"'CO I-N_1t) ..... ::!~o;- o' :,... -' &')~ 11:' - '-J '-/ il / r ~ , _.t, I _ i- ~~_ t- --i I- - H '/ ~L i1 ~~ I - \:' I i,ll, II I r r, I: ::: 1'1 r' _ I I II Ii'; :! ! 1 lill,i,III,I! lil.I!'!i;j: 1IIIIiill I II 'I i' I I Iii I i I i Ii: ! Iii j I: I I I,!ili! Iii'! I II I~ liill!!III'I" 'I' : ,I, I I I I I I III i II j II - I " i 1 ! 1,!ljlll'rT iii i' II I; I 11 I II , ~ ,Iillllilli ! -1 II I W~ II ii !I J: :I;I! 1- J, I i ~ fill): __ ; i ~j~ - "_',m -. :: : : I jl , ~ii : Iii Jj:J-i : ! I'll! i ~'iJi i : I I! H...!..j l ~ I j ! ! J, , ' , I ' , II j" j i I ili ,~ -'- - . ';,;H,' ~.~,il' N II! I' I ~ ~ Ii I i' I I I: i Ii rl II II I I Illi,l Iii II II 111!i' -r-j 1;1,',' ,I ,!! i' 'II! , III 'I I i I I ! II :1 I I i I, : 1'1 : I , :[ i, i I! I ,I,:' i i'l ' ! 'II i I, II 1'1 I ! :,; 1 ,III I ill ~ ' 'L ~I 111;; iI il '1[' I III I II + +,," +~t. 'jj' ll!+ ii-ill II! "r!'lri HI 'T,:"-,',I,:,,.II' !:tr rl - ! f i i I! I _. I _ 11 !! fl..Jll :.j. .;:I!. - o:l>d I--~~ c<) -li:- --. [ -+ ~ ~ , ~ , I i : l ~ ~ i ~~~cJ) i 'l: ~ i ~q I\!'" i : ~ '-i "I '^ i ~ ~ '~ .... ..- e, *=~ Gl .. c e-- u.- mi:tpca i o~ttg~ (/)C\I::=,...... ~~ ~~~ U)f.5<<s,.. a..~_Ll)( ~,~ai6: .c C') c: C"') c... f-:C\I~~o;- ..... Si:CD..... -, ....1:') ~: ~e-_ IJII1] -.-J '-./ . . i! ! , 11111 II! !'TI~--r ,-!~~~' ! T I III i 1111' I'" , ":, ' I 'I!' ' I "" ,I li"!','li l:i,II,."I,i!!! I Ii :il, ,I i I! i 'I I ,,; I' 1'1: ::! I: i j i:i ,I' II' , I ";" " , I ,I i' I' " ' , '" I i I' II' i I! II Ii I i ,I i I,ll Iii I I ' !' I' 'II : I I I,'!, II" I ' ,I I ,I ,I 'I 'I" I ' ' ! IIIII i Iii II III I I i I I II I i I i l ~'] II, iii! I , ' ' I " , " i , ILI!1 lil'I , ,i i Ii I ! II,! j,' I ,I i' ] ' ; I, I J: I .:'; ii ' ~ : i i ili ! II ill " .'1 :: Iii: Iii! ,Ii : !I !\ i _ i i I I,; - lilW' I I, ,':I I: !ll , :.; . Iii I I' I I i, I' ! i! 1:1 I; I II I ,,' ' " I,,;, I ! i' !!i il,! ! I I ii, : III' I III i i I i I' I' II ~ I I '1' l II :' :1', I ,;! i!' I' ,I Ii I: ,Ii I I II': , I-~.I ~~ i ,f i ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~" ~ .., \.. V) ~ , ~ t ~ { ~ ' \! ~ ...; ~.. " c, to, '~ c *- ~_ !2 = ~ e_iliCDL cu ~m~'c (-'> l..,. ~ as 11l U5vg~ ex: N-.... 01- C\!--C- {I)'O U)...... '," a,; 1.0 .q: ...... ,. E.......-(J)(' 'N If), ooci6W ..c'C') C(I)l.l) I- .N~O '" Ul ~' -m- u "'- _, ....(f) a:; e- I Staff Report October 12, 2006 Historic Review for 519 S. Summit Street District Summit Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Sarah Richardson and David Barker, are requesting approval for a proposed project involving demolition, a new addition on the back of the house and some alterations on the original house at 519 South Summit Street, which is a contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. The applicants intend to demolish a portion of the existing first floor addition, approximately 14 feet long and 6 feet wide and construct a new addition approximately 28 feet long and 12 feet wide on the first floor. The project will also include: 1) Increasing the height of the first floor oriel on the south side by lowering the sill level for the windows and replacing the existing double-hung windows with new wood double-hung windows 2) Extending the landing for an internal stairway to access the basement resulting in an 18-inch, 8 feet wide and 10 feet tall 'bump-out' and relocating a small fIXed-pane window Ap.vlicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations, 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Addition, and 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition. Staff Comments The house was built in c. 1910 (1880 per assessor) with Late 19th/Early 20th Century Revival architectural style and with some influence ofNeo-Classical stylistic features. Some exiting additions built on the back of the house detract from the original form and mass of the house. The applicants intend to build a new addition after removing some potion of the existing addition (approximatelyl4 feet wide and 6 feet long). The applicants have revised the plan for the addition project that was approved by the Commission in April 2006. The previous plan included a second story addition and also proposed a change in the roof line of the existing two-story addition. The applicants are now seeking approval only for the first floor addition. The applicants intend to close an internal stairway (in the existing kitchen addition) that currently provides access to the basement and add a flight of stairs to another internal stair (in the original house) to access the basement. The applicants are proposing to extend the landing for the stairway beyond the south fa~ade by approximately 20 inches in depth, 10 feet in height and 8 feet-6 inches in width. Staff believes that such an addition would be a poorly juxtaposed to the existing oriel and would conflict with the form and fenestration of the historic structure. The applicants are proposing to build a larger addition to accommodate a modern kitchen and dining area, by replacing the existing addition, which contains the existing stairway. The existing rear additions on the house are compatible with the character of the house in terms of form, mass, rooiline and fenestration. The proposed addition will increase the overall length of the building; however it is smaller in scale when compared to the overall mass of the building. Staff recommends that the applicants should thoroughly explore alternatives to accommodate the stairway access to the basement witltin the proposed new addition, before any incompatible changes, such as the 'bump-out', are considered on the original house. Although, the existing structure on the property is a result of various alterations, additions with multiple types of openings of various sizes and proportions, the proposed additions and alterations should not contribute to the visual clutter, and should be designed to minimize it. . I 'A'pplication 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 J 4-4C. GUidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be (ound 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 momhs, 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~~~i:~ed .."..!9/~~"....."....,...." o 5=ertificate of No Material Effect \..P" Ce~fjcate of Appropriateness ~ Major review Q Intermediate review o Minor review em ail................................................................. ............................... .; ,'--" ,--... \ A 'z:..., '~y , l"'\-a - Historic Designation ~ Contractor .."....~,""lI--'....."..!.v..IZ;O"-.<....<;;""""...I...~ I )fQ.. . Address ",..Zl,;"...E ...[b.n~~iS:..--::I...,.........." This property is a local historic landmark "..L,O,~'";)",..{h;~!.l.:_~:..).."."",."..,,................. 0 ~~ property is located in the: Phone",.."'"~...L:,..u.e..Zm.S..,.............,....,....,..".."... 0 Brown Street Historic District email",..",...",..,.........."...........,..,.."",....,....,..,....."...,.......,,'.,'........ 0 College Green Historic District o Consultant ..I(j..l.,q..,Cn.~t..Lllun.:L~.!.!...DXl9 C' ,. 0 East College Street Historic District =. 1,1 l' u < 0 Longfellow Historic District Address ".::;)J..." .. 1.,1..1..'1....,.. .....k.....f:.=T......"....,....,.... 0 Summit Street Historic District ....k~L..v...'",..C.A:J.~J.......JkL..,...."..".........".................,.." Phone....3.1.,9,..7....3.S..1,..:::..3S.L~..,..,....,.....,.., Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) o Owner .~.....,.63.!:kH......kb',!:!:~.TlC Phone""...."..."65.::.,i..::::::...2L""2...,~~..,........,..",..,....,, Address ..2lt;"..E-_..,DJfJ!.,"~.::r..,....,.."..,............ ",.....,...../-"".(;",......,..""........",..........,........,.........,....,.."....,..,....... .......:"..1....;:'..,..:::~".....j'I"..;'.......7r'r;.......?!'....".."......,,,..,,...., emal'.., (....,!.Z:.....,.."L......l..dD.kl_1......l....c?k:Y.::l,......,....". Application Requirements Attached are the following items: o Site plan o Fioor plans o Building elevations .Ji!! Photographs i Product information . 0 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 ...2La...E;;.....n1~~-:r."........ ..,....,.....1~blb..A.Q.Qr.1.1.UJ..,....",..'.."...."2;......... Use of property..~..,..~,..16.I.;E.tl..,...~..O:r.r.c~,...;:)PAC..C- Date constructed (if known)..",....J.,q.sO,:.2.."....,..,..,......".".... Ar:o ~ TI G.li-l o Woodlawn Historic District o Clark Street Conservation District o o o College Hill Conservation District Dearborn Street Conservation District Lucas~Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: o Contributing o NonCOntributing o Nonhistoric Project Type jQ. Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and wind9W r~ent, 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. change its appearance o Other ..,.......,........,.....,',..,...........,...,.....".."............."..,.., ""n,..,..", v I '----' Project description ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.(f;;;~:~:~:::~"':;::E:~:;:.~;:;::~~;::::i~):;::c.:;;;::=:;~::::::T~:::::::::i:i.ji:::::TXX;;':~;::::::::::::: ..........J.QD.A.7..LC.IJ...............~...z.............lFhb........Lp:.;:A:~......t...:p)f:v.n.t~t.1..L.H.6.......':..z.......JJb",T...q~AC5 ' ...."............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Materials to be used ...........................:................~'L.....;;;....;..............i'y....................:.........;.....;............r................................................................................................ ....................L.!t;;.I.-I::::l...........!.J..dJ..............l.."L,.';h::.l/....~..O'..".Q........V!./:I,.l<.'1c.s....L1:::;,........................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................,......... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................,....................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes ..........................~~...........:...................~.....................=.............::.....C~.~..................................................~....~:.:............................................. ..................f.J....,...l.?......Ltll..u. :O.c.,I..L.),.;;;;;,........................",.........:<?:,..........I.c.........&......J....J:::......r..2..L.Y.::I.A..I.<;;Je..V,;;). .................Z\~.........:......;.iE.~........~........;.......:.................~................................................:.~~.......:.....i;...................:..;;.....=....................................... ................................L..71............I.I...l1f--......:Nt-"'.......AIQf2I.J.J...c........ t1.f..~......&.....l:..L.............................. ...0- V\M~...lr."S~.E4~;WnH...ll1jj'L.,..Eilfl;,H...J.Ad..Q!..l'iJ.Ec......... ......Jt;lI?ln....f.U.U.b.I..k:.....1.l1 ..f4:hti.ifL......f..VJUl'X::H<i"S..,..........1.11fi....v.o.p'O"tf*-o lJ{..u) ..L.Lh.WCct.t.b ..........l...~J.l:\,.;.......e;.~.........L.kJJ.UI.IJ.L..:6.....&:LJ:'..t..~2.....L{.)!...lI!9iJ.lbl7t....UJJ:r':1.....~.~.... .....:~. ).!.-:J.H:...C...."Ii~"?;::..."O!..~.U)."'''''.....k.1~;;;.JD._..~W.'rl!'J'...~.......tAL...... ...... .?Q:l~)..... _F.-.......1Hf:...:..V(~I,;f.J!:.IJ.-J;;h!-......::.......1H:'2.....l.L1.b!......~1.h..,.....~~.............. ........J lAdb.S......Wv.~.....&.....~r..R.kt.9.~~L.....l(Vk.7.H........{),uE:.u-_....Lk.1.~Jc.b6..................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ppdOldmlHP HandbooklApp.p!l5 Iowa City Window & Door 51 Hwy 1 West Iowa City, IA 52246 Phone: 3193513513 L.-, QUOTE BY: Liz SOLD TO: Old Brick _ PO#: LINE NO. LOCATION SIZE INFO Line-1 North-Bath,Hall, Cogs, Arts Rough Opening: 361/2 X 48 9/16 r-'~ tQ]~ Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = " ~ J~~~~~ QUOTE #: JLlZ00795 SHIP TO: PROJECT NAME: Fund REFERENCE: BOOK CODE DESCRIPTION Premium Clad Double Hung Vent Unit Frame Size 35 3/4 X 4713/16 (1 -Wide) (CHESTNUT-BRONZE) Natural-Interior W/Nai/ing-Fin 4 9/16 Jamb Low-E One-Lite Brown Cam-Lock Ivory-Jambliner Chestnut-Bronze-Screen 'CUSTOM width' (DP30) PEV 2006.3.0.73/PDV 5.191 (O8l30106) NW QTY Line- 2 South & West-Cogs & Arts 7 Rough Opening: 36 3/4 X 48 9/16 IF ~~'-11 @ Viewed trom Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' Premium Clad Double Hung Vent Unit Frame Size 36 X 4713/16 (1 -Wide) (CHESTNUT-BRONZE) Natural-Interior W/Nai/ing-Fin 4 9/16 Jamb Low-E One-Lite Brown Cam-Lock Ivory-Jambliner Chestnut-Bronze-Screen 'CUSTOM width' (DP30) PEV 200G.3.0.73/POV 5.191 (OB/30/0B) NW 3 OO.1.7.235cU51-037000 OuoleOale:9/27/2006 JUZ00795.10l2J2006.0B:26 last Modj~ed: 10/212006 PaQe 1 of 1 lPrices are subjecllD change.) Drawil'l9s are for visual relcrence only and may not be 10 exact scale. All orders are subiecllo review by JElD-WEN Iowa City Window & Door 51 Hwy 1 West Iowa City, IA 52246 Phone: 3193513513 QUOTE BY: Liz SOLD TO: Old Brick - PO#: LINE NO, LOCATION SIZE INFO Line- 1 North-Cogs Rough Opening: 36 1/2 X 48 9/16 r==~i] ~bdDI ~ ^ JI \11 U ! ~~~~~-w Viewl3d from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = " L o J~1~~~ QUOTE #: JLlZ00794 SHIP TO: PROJECT NAME: Order REFERENCE: BOOK CODE DESCRIPTION ory Premium Clad Double Hung Vent Unit Frame Size 35 3/4 X 4713/16 (1 -Wide) (CHESTNUT-BRONZE) Natural-Interior W/Nailing-Fin 4 9/16 Jamb Low-E One-Lite Brown Cam-Lock Ivory-Jambliner Chestnut-Bronze-Screen 'CUSTOM width' (DP30) PEV 2006.3.0. 731PDV 5.191 (08/30106) NW 2 Line- 2 West-Cogs Rough Opening: 49 3/4 X 81 3/4 f- I I~ c=J ~1 Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 118" = " Mull Main Item Teton Awning Unit Combination Unit (Frame Size 49 X 81 ) (CHESTNUT-BRONZE) Natural-Interior W/Nailing Fin 4 9/16 Jamb PEV 2006.3.0.73IPDV 5.191 (08130106) NW Line-2-1 Teton Clad Awning Unit Frame Size 49 X 16 (1 -Wide) (CHESTNUT-BRONZE) Natural-Interior W/Nailing Fin Low-E One-Lite OPERATING (Brown-Hdwe) Brown-Screen 'CUSTOM WIDTH' 'CUSTOM height' OQ-1.7.235cUSI.Q37000 Quote Date: 912712006 JUZOO794 . 10/212006.08:22 laSIModified: 1012/2006 PaQe 1 of 3 (Prices are subjecl to change.) DrawinQs are for visual reference only and may not be 10 exact sca!e. AllOI'ders are 5ubiecllo review by JELO.WEN II, " ,....... ~ A " -- ..,.0"" j v ~~j,'. 'I ~'cc,,~..:; ''''''''''''cT.' .~~. ......:;~I, ' I ,.".". 'III ,I-'. '~H ;1 ill! i1:~"\lr'II~f I" %~ ' I I N I ~- - , i,I'UL} t It - "-II~ ]',~ ..I' ,. ,...- Staff Report October 12, 2006 Historic Review for 26 E. Market Street District: N/A Classification: Iowa City Historic Landmark The applicant, Old Brick Foundation, is requesting approval for a proposed project involving alterations at 26 East Market Street, which is an Iowa City Historic Landmarks. The applicant intends to replace the existing awning style metal windows with new metal-clad wood, part fixed-pane and part operable awning style widows, and the existing double-hung windows with metal-clad wood windows on the non-historic west wing on the property. The fixed-pane portion of the awning windows will contain simulated mullions to match the pattern of the existing windows. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations Staff Comments Staff recommends approval. " ,/ A~~lication for Historic Rev.lw 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 Histor;c Review process. explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the lowo City Historic Preservotion 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 m,y also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting, ~:t~r:~b~~ed ......I...0/c:?/...o.:re..., '..,......... a Certificate of No ~~terial Effect \.-.6"Cer~te of Appropriateness ~Malor review Q Intermediate review Cl Minor review Applicant Information (P17 check primary contact person) vf Owner ....11.Jl..~.d............./c:l. r4.~..,=............ Phone......3./.'l..:::.,..,3,37..~....2, ..,h...?.......,........... Address .7.<./..,...........E.. .........G.....I.I..'Cf..c......... ...................,...............,...:...................................................Sf.-... )'",;1.............................................................................................. $ Contractor 1~.6........t21.{?~!::;or:..."'..........~t:. Address2.?.7...........t::.......d:,......:..s:..b..,....................... h!..~.f..............~.:&.cf.y.............:d::..<;;,....,.............. Phone.....J.:.(7::::........~.?..7......:~....?s:.?c.L................ em'i1......4.t 1......j:Jf,..........:i:.t.?.:;:.x.4..I.-::..Y..~.7..;? a Consultant ..................................,...................................,.......... Address ................. ......................................................................... Phone.............................................................................................. email.........................."................................",.............................".. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ~e plan .::.er-Floor plans J ' ~uildingelevations .,....).....{ ~.""/~ a Photographs o Product information a Other.............................................................................. If the proposed project.entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a sit~ plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project Is a minor altera~ion 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 applic'tion. Property Information Address of property.........7~.l............t;,............~...I(rJ:-C.... ~t ..................:.................."~.~.~.............~.,,....................... Use of property ..................................................,.............................,...., Date constructed (if known) .............!..'l.fY.?......,..............:.............. Historic Designation a This property Is a 10c,1 historic landmark ~h7s property is located in the: o Brown Street Historic District ~ollege Green Historic District a East College Street Historic District Cl Longfellow Historic District Cl Summit Street Historic District CJ Woodlawn Historic District Cl Clark Street Conservation District a College Hill Conservation District Cl Dearborn Street Conservation District [J lucas.Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property Is classified as: a Contributing '? ~~nco~tributing V" Nonhistoric Project Type ..a---1\Iteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) a Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) a Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys. decorative trim, baluster or similar) UJ-Construction of new building ~pair or restoration of an existing structure that will not . change its appearance a Other ,..,....:::.....,.........,.......................,......,...............................".. ( ./ ) . , . Project description ."......"..r.:.~/q.~..."....".."....".."."~g.~..".."",,.:/I.f?.J...,,...........r.:I.Ie.."""d~~........""...".....::tlu/:::.........."....."..."" ..".........".kJ.(..;:...."""..".."".."".J..J:..f.l."'.Qy-uJ.."""""..,,..,;,,,~':J.......,,".""".~.~,.Z..............r...&.fc..~.........................."....,,... .........,..............."..,......"..".."..............................................,..................."."",..,",..................................................,.......,............................,.".....",................. ......"......................,,,.............,...,.,.,.....,.,"."......................."......................."...........".............."..............,,,..........,.....,,......,,,...................".....................,......., ."...".":;;d:.~.~..~~.c.......................:Sr.w.:.c..."..."....~..r:.......,,...""....6.A~.............."Q.'l.~".."...".".."..""....... .....".."("c-;r;a}.f'''.."".."/~::?.2.'::':.l...."..".....s:1...4(;'''P..."..,,'',,..7>.,!...,,.......d/"'-.Idn.U'x.~...."....s...o".f:!<<r .."....""~.~"....::t::~J:.(.I.i;."........".........;,:""'.J?:h~..".."..",,.!'-1..:........"...~~~.........."..."....""........."".."". .......................................,......."...,.",.."...,.."........,...,...........,."...,..,.....,.,.....,...,......................................,..,....................................,.........."...,...,.."",...,...,,,..., .",...."".,......."..""..."...,..",...,.,.....,.......................".."..,............,.,................,...,.."",."...",......"......"....,.,.......................................,"......".....,...,...,.."..,...,..... ......,...,...........,...................."............,...,...,......................,..,...,................,.."......,..."...........,..............,...,....,.......,........."...,.......,......,.,....."...,."...,..,...,...,........ ..................................................,.......,....,.................................................,...................,......,........................."...........,...........,...,..,...,...,.....,...,......,.................. ..............,.........................................................................,...........................................................................,.................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................,............ ............................................................................................................................... ......................................................................~... Materials to be used :;;L;;;~<=~~~;;:::;~;;;J:::i.r~,.'l:7:~t~ ......................,...........,....,..,..........,........,..,...,...,........................,.........................,.................................."..............,,,........,...,...,...,...,..,.....,...,.......................... .......,......................"...........,................,............................,......,........,....".....................,......,...,..................".........."......"...,.."""",.."...,..,...........,................... ...........".,....,.,.,................,.................................,..,....,..........,......"..,....".........,.,...,...,.........,...,........,....,.....................................,...,...,............."...,...,...".,."..., ....,..,.....,...,...,....,,,....,.......,...................,,......,,..",..",..,......,.............,...,.......,..................,.......".,..".".."..""....,.........."..,,,.........,,,,,,,...,.......,,..".,.".................. .................................................................,...............................,.............,..............................,...................................,....................... .................................................................,..................................,.........,...,........................."..............................................,..,......... Exterior appearance changes 60 J Ie. . ::<:;;Z;,:;,;;:::::::::::=..~~~:.:::::::::::::::::::::::~:.::::::::::::::::::::::.:::~~:..::::::.::::~::::::::~::::::::::::::'::'::~'::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .............5.,.~r..f4j....................~...M...ri.......................s:.!iI..~..............Qf<':l.....................f.~.~k..........~.....'...................... ..M..............c.f.-l~..J.................w.ltl......................~:rf.?X.~............~~.d.........'!c:.d...................... ...I.II..'t..n...a.I.."'.__..............~.9..PI::-':..........-r:...ti.:f.r;.~~.................................................................................. .................................................,......,.................,...,......,....,.,.......,...,.....,.....,.....,.,.....,.......,......"..,..,...................,.........................,.. ......................,..,.....,..........,..................................,...,.............,..............,..............................,................,..,...,.....,....'.....,...,...........,.. ..................................,...................".......................,.......,.............................,.........................,..........,.....".."...,.,....................,........ ......................,.................,.........,......,....,..,........,....................................................,..............,....,.,.....,....,..,..................................... ...............,...................,........................,....",..,..............,..............,...,...,...,..,..................".....,..."...........................,.........................,. ..............................................................................."...................................................................,.........,.......................................... ppdadm/HP Hal'ldbooklApp.p65 - J '~l ~ ~ d l~L~_ d-,..~.'." t ~ ,) I ;J 1,' II -'-~ -{ 1\ .,,1,\,'\' II ,:. j , -l~[~~'li ; : ~ ~ ~;{~ :-'~~:4-~' I"< _~v .. . "i.':.JI' \' 'it '\t{l)~; in ~.~~ '~1 " ..{,,;.,.....~=n ~ ':'.", i'-;~':1': "":~"'~"~:-:::.' '.1 !~ . ....iil J~ '~~, lr1~~.JL" . ~ ,. ,~ . \;<~:r4i,.:.. Ju R U.'." .+. ].. · i._..,~~_, .l:ttr=':' ': ....--:.:--..p=OO.-'-.--.." -', ~ P'fJ/I" 'I .,.1' :~"P'. r,_ 'lJ ''''. ., . . , dl'li I. ~I . 'Iq", .. 1"1 -"--'~-'----', I I i. ~ I _ ,~....., ~I j ~ e ~, ! <IJ"';-Jh fL. . ' , .___L, '!' I ......j I. ( t ('".., ~.. 'I 'i J " .... .:: - . '" "~~'l:lL.;....:" . ~ . ;, .N''-:",. ,,,- " ; ,~~.ti.i;~~' ,~,:,:~~~~ ,,~" '~ ~ , i . -".~.. '" i ~: 101- :1.11, f /" ...> ~ :-11":10< .. t IJ' i li ' )- I.... -..-& 'J. I i ,,'-,......--~-----,- - i' ;(~tll'~fi! ' ""lj~' "t ' rt. " lJ . 1)j" ~ ~t" ;1 l I I ___"'" . : "--'::~; ,-! I ~~-~'-7-~""'-':";-'~-"~-::'~:-_', ' . :: --------...............-:..'. ""'.:,'.,j'!- ;'il~ . ".<. * ~"lJ '. , (~Oi.""'t..,- .... , , , , \ \ -~ ~ - , 1 " .......... I '.... , .1 I , I ~ lLJ' ' , : I , , .' ' - .~ . , -", . " '. , " " -'l .. .. .. L ...-.."... ~ . ~. ~'.. ':; n "i ,~. l ..+: r ..,' ~~ .j Ii .~; 'j \ I ~~ J~l ~..~~. ._"" _..... I ,,! . Fi .....---- " u ~.. '" ~ I " ~rE-" ""- I" it' I. ~:), ,,: ~ ,. "" v / '~I' '5 ~'.:'" . ~1' _(~~,' . ueo: .. .'::: ~ .' III 1 ~j'..:.i' . .~,!,:::.,.,.u..:'::. li' "1'-- i /\ \1"'--(; \~ --.' '. "1 ~j~! .~,.\\IJ>> ~ . I'.v,,> '> _l~'iT~li:f1~.~':;' .~ ,/. """, _~ '~'r-.J.+ \1\ .....~ \ ',' ~k ,~.~ ;1 '......'Hr. a . . '!!l) , .;. .:t \-" II c. I A . r ,;'j I 'c v ,~ 1\ ,:,' 1, 1; \; , _ r-'\ Y V '~ I . , ,,~':l 1\ <.t ~ I.r .,' I ' : ., '" ill ,Ii ", \ . '. ,. (., ;) I\': , d \ ~ ~ ','. ~J. ~~... ~~ ~ I ~ \ I "\~. .~. ~;fl ~~~~" ~.~~. :i' 'is I i \ '~Jl . 'l. 't . . ' . , _ _ .\ ).~ :-,,1-,- I:, 1- i. .o....'?-'. ~ . l\ ,J ~"o.. ..'~ ,.. ~,,-< ., ... ... ,. . I"'" .~. . ,. '~. .- ~~~r I )9i. ~+)"o'i~' I )....r,;o;oJL:i"I'..':..:.L . 'y . ~. ,."V-,-:-- !!..' I L' f .-- '''' ~...~~::s ' ,',;,' ,..'. -~,:~j '" . ... ",- I ~ - . .". 11-..'.. .fJ _ ;; f:.. ,--'" .....-::0::-: - ~ I'.-}f' \,L.:>' '-' . e} ....' , \ ,.\'\.~~!;;' "'.' ~"''''i\.~' ' / "- \1.1,,_ \,) ..... "<.J . -. ./. -:I: .';:+ "'! _ ~-'Ij <cJ!!t \"1 / ~ ~ . , . -j i. tl3 .... h' / ~lH ....,.. . ',~'1 _~. ?y,! -- //.,' --<t~ '1 K.,) ! ' ~_" .--t. .... '-::~l,;;.':.r ~ :."T'1" . '0.; ~. ~ \\/ ,:; t..) .. / :1 ! . u. ~. "l.i .-, ,~., ~ ~~. ~ ~. I "" ._. ........lr ~l J! ~ .. "I" y " :.i t ;{ -\Y \" "- " "D: , ~ -~l , '- . i~ -P< ~ " .~ ~~.j,:'" .,..,. ,,' //"~ "~~,.' !j P . ,"' .1' 1 : : ,I i . i~ I" :,. L'l:~ --t '--" 'j: ~ ;5. '3 -::t )< ~ I '11 : ' ~ ~_.: ". ~ . ~"""'Tp ::tv - ,//~ / ~_/ /' /' /' / .~ +. ,.- , -' ,/ t ,. ..~1 .. ,L --:: t ..'f ~ . I.' 5 I ~, . il d .... '; !I: ~ .. 'j ~ : : ~i~ ! . '.. ~ : 1 :: I :: :i :' 'I " " -"'-.- .1 Ii " " 11; " :; ;; ~ : " I ~ " " ~ : 'I:: ~: I :!!! ,'1:: 1 . : ~ , , . 't. :j .-....'tl ~~ j'l ;"1 ':: I, ': , , , . , :: ',:t; , . ;. :r I: :! " ;" '0': , , , .....: ~ ., -..IJ 'i :; , , , , " I _J" "1 I, I.. ~,,_.... '-11 - :1 ',- ,- ': ,- ,- 'Ii ", ," ill I,' 'I " I', " , , , 1:1 . , 1 ~ :- I - , '" !i " .. ,. .. :: I:: :: " ,- " " -, I ,j J i, J' Ii! I:i Ii! -"-'-----'1" Staff Report October 12, 2006 Historic Review for 721 E. College Street District: College Green Historic District Classification: Non-Historic The applicant, Mildred Keller, is requesting approval for a proposed project involving alterations and new construction at 721 East College Street, which is a non-historic property in the College Green Historic District. The applicant intends to replace the existing cedar siding on the house with fiber cement board siding and rebuild a five- car carport---<iemolished in the recent storm-with fiber cement board siding instead of the original cedar siding. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Hisroric Preservation Guidelines for Alterations, 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Addition, and 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition. Staff Comments Staff recommends approval. 1<~ CITY OF IOWA CITY Department or Housing and Inspection Services 410 Washington SlIeet Iowa City, Iowa 52240 October 6, 2006 Mike Waltz 4562 Canterbury Ct. Iowa City, IA 52245 Dear Mr. Waltz, Enclosed is a Notice of Violation for work being done without a building permit at property you own at 934 Iowa Avenue. The permit was applied for but was yet issued because the Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historical Preservation Commission had not yet bee received. It is my understandng from speaking to Sunil Terdalkar (Historic Preservation Planner) that the Commission was shown a picture of the roof as it existed before the tornado and was told that the roof would be rebuilt exactly the same. Evidently, the roof that has been already been framed does not match what was presented to HPC. In order for the building permit to be issued, the new roof design must be approved by HPC or the roof must be rl>-framed to match was existing. Until that time when a permit is issued, all work must cease. Please contact me at 356-5120 or Sunil Terdalkar at 356-5243 if you have any questions. Thank you, Iann Ream Code Enforcement Assistant NOTICE OF VIOLATION ~ CITY OF IOWA CITY DATE: October 6, 2006 MIKE WALTZ 4562 CANTERBURY CT IOWA CITY, IA 52245 Case #: COM06-00945 Location of Violation: 934 IOWA AVE Dear Property Owner. According to the records of the tax assessor, you are the owner of the above-referenced property. On 101612006, I observed an apparent violation of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City on your property. Type of Violation: 14-7C-5A-2: Construction without a permit Corrective Action Required: OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT - NEED HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPROVAL FOR WORK ALREADY COMPLETED VIOLATION MUST BE ABATED ON OR BEFORE: 10/23/2006 If you believe that you are not in violatietn of the City Code, pl.ease contad this office to review the situation. If you intend to bring the property into compliance with the Code, but cannot meet the stated deadline, please contad this office and we will attempt to work With you on a short extension. If you do not take the requested action or make other arrangements with this office by the spedfied date, we will begin formal enforcement action. You wi. not receive an additional warning before we begin formal enforcement action. Enforcement action may Inducle dvil penalties; administrative remedies such as denial or revocation of City penn its and licenses, criminal CXlurt proceedings, and/or action for an injunction or other CXlurt order directing elimination of the violation. If you wish to discuss any aspect of this order, please call me at 319-356-5120. ~. com_viol.rpt NOTICE OF VIOLATION ~,&. CITY OF IOWA CITY DATE: October 10,2006 K D PROPERTIES LLC 125 BICKFORD DR WEST BRANCH, IA 52358 Case #: COM06-00955 Location of Violation: 830 E COLLEGE ST Dear Property Owner: According to the records of the tax assessor, you are the owner of the above-referenced property. On 10/1012006, I observed an apparent violation of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City on your property. Type of Violation: 14-3B-3B & 17-1-3(Sec.105.9(2))- Removal of a any portion of a building in a historic district requires a demolition permit Corrective Action Required: APPLY FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT - DEMOLITION MUST BE APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION BEFORE PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. WORK MUST CEASE UNTIL ISSUE IS RESOLVED. VIOLATION MUST BE ABATED ON OR BEFORE: 10/27/2006 If you believe that you are not in violation of the City Code, please contact this office to review the situation. If you intend to bring the property into compliance with the Code, but cannot meet the stated deadline, please contact this office and we will attempt to work with you on a short extension. If you do not take the requested action or make other arrangements with this office by the spedfied date, we will begin formal enforcement action. You will not receive an additional warning before we begin formal enforcement action. Enforcement action may indude dvil penalties, administrative remedies such as denial or revocation of City permits and licenses, criminal court proceedings, and/or action for an injunction or other court order directing elimination of the violation. If you wish to discuss any aspect of this order, please call me at 319-356-5120. Sincerely, Jann Ream Code Enf. Asst. ':i~'"*:"':5 :i'- e".J~I'''.:.''*'' ~.:\;;""'" L.(: COP,! com_viol.rpt MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Michael Gunn, John McCornally, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Carlson, Tim Toomey STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Guy from Sears Home Improvement, Ben Lewis, Philip Lutgendorf, Shelley McCafferty, John Roffman, Rebecca Routh, Terry Stumpf, Tim Taffe CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Terdalkar suggested that the election be deferred until later in the meeting. MOTION: Ponto moved to defer the election of officers until later. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificate of Appropriateness. 923 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said that this property recently received a certificate of appropriateness for demolition from the Commission, without a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction of the proposed building on the site. He said the Commission is now reviewing the proposal for the new structure on the site. Terdalkar said the applicant is proposing a six-unit, 18-bedroom apartment building to replace the storm- damaged nine-unit, nine-bedroom rooming house. He said that the staff report is based on the Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Buildings, (Section 10) which require' certain criteria to be demonstrated before a certificate of appropriateness is issued for the project. Terdalkar said that staff has asked the applicant to revise the drawings to comply with all the guidelines and regulations. McCafferty, the consultant for this project, distributed a revised site plan. She said that the only changes to the building that are not reflected in the Commission's packet are that there will be 18 inches taken out of the depth, the length of the building. McCafferty said that the side elevations would therefore not be changed. McCafferty provided an elevation to show that the building would comply with the front setback requirements and where the building sits in relationship to the other properties on the block. She said the building should therefore comply with the multi-family guidelines in the historic preservation handbook. McCafferty said there was a lot of discussion in the staff report about site issues. She said that the owner would like to request approval of the architecture at this time, as well as the site plan as it is right now. McCafferty said the site plan is still somewhat of a concept, because the owner did not yet have the site engineering. McCafferty said the owner did not want to engineer the site around a building that may not be approved by the Commission. McCafferty said the owner would therefore like to have approval of the Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 2 building. She said that, when the application gets to the additional stages of site engineering and there is a possibility of a sensitive areas rezoning, this would come back to the Commission for an amendment. McCafferty said that the owner would, however, like to have the confidence to proceed with the engineering of this building at this time. Weitzel asked for clarification that McCafferty is therefore asking for approval of the architectural plan at this point and the concept for the site plan, which the Commission would then review at a later date. McCafferty said that if there are significant changes, it could be reviewed again. She said that if the site can be engineered pretty much to be exactly what is shown, she would leave it to staff and request that it not have to go before the Commission again. McCafferty said there will probably be retaining walls and other things like that that are not yet resolved, and they may be of a height and such that this needs to come back. McCafferty pointed out that she tried to design this so that it complies with the guidelines. She pointed out the front elevation and the drawing that shows how this would compare to the outline of the previous building. McCafferty said the goal of the elevation was to lower the overall eave height and put living units more under the roof, so that there are three stories but with a lower eave line. McCafferty said that the building is much more articulated than what was there previously. She added that it is a little wider than the original building, but her intent in designing it was to design it so it looks more like a large duplex. McCafferty said there are two front fac;ades essentially connected by a stairway. She said she lowered the eave line where the stair is to accentuate the fact that it is more of a link that is pushed back. McCafferty said the intent is to maximize the look of this as a duplex as opposed to an apartment block. Swaim asked how much wider this would be than the original building. Terdalkar said that the original building was 42 feet wide, and the new building would be 58 feet wide. McCafferty said that with the side bay, which is back away from the front fac;ade, it would be 58 feet, and without the side bays, it would be 52 feet. She said the perception of the building from the front is going to be that it is ten feet wider. McCafferty said that the site plan shows a darker outline showing the relative difference in the footprint of the old versus the new. She added that she broke up the pitch and articulation of the roof and some articulation to the front surface by using the two different siding materials. McCafferty stated that it would all be done out of fiber cement board, with a concrete base. McCafferty said that, given the slope of the site, not a lot of the bottom foundation would be visible. She said that with the ramp, there will probably be some landscaping to deal with that, so that one would not really see any of the foundation. McCafferty said that at this point, she is proposing to just paint the foundation. Michaud asked what the difference is between the sidewalk elevation and the plateau. McCafferty said that it goes up approximately nine feet within 15 feet of length, which is about a 60% slope. She said that, with that slope, in order to get the ramp, there will probably have to be an easement on the adjacent property, and there is a verbal agreement to do that. McCafferty stated that the slope will have to be softened somewhat on the side next to the large apartment building on the east side in order to have ramp accessibility from the front. Ponto said that staff had discussed the issue of lighting in his staff report. McCafferty said that on the revised site plan, she did indicate some lighting. She said that typically, a civil engineer will do a light plan to guarantee downcast, shielded lights with appropriate lumens and so forth. McCafferty said that this . plan is not at that step yet, so she is basically proposing a concept. She said there would be lights underneath the porch, on the back of the building, underneath the roof over the rear stairway, and there will probably have to be a pole or two in the back. McCafferty said she is trying to push them as far back as possible so as not to add glare to the single-family house. She said that there are buffering requirements, and there is already a natural tree line, and she is showing some supplement of that. 2 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 3 Phillip Lutgendorf requested permission to address the Commission as a neighboring property owner. He said that he has lived at and owned the adjacent property, 911 Iowa Avenue, for 21 years. He said the Commission is mostly concerned with how things look, but he has other concerns as a neighborhood resident, and he wanted to at least express them. Lutgendorf said the building that was at 923 Iowa Avenue was a remarkably good neighbor in that he has never had a complaint toward that building. He said that in terms of noise, a major issue on that block, he has never had a problem with that building. Lutgendorf said he suspects that the reason for that is that there were one-bedroom apartments and only nine people living there, and they tended to be quiet students. Lutgendorf said that his biggest concern about this plan, apart from the sheer size of the building, is the fact that it would double the density of people living at that site. He said that he also feels that three- bedroom apartments will attract a different kind of clientele - people living with their friends and having parties. Lutgendorf said that the reality is that what is driving single families off that block on Iowa Avenue is the noise from parties. He said that the police have been called many, many times, mostly because of houses on the north side of Iowa Avenue. Lutgendorf said that the thought of having that now come in right next door is really troubling to him. He said that if the goal it to stabilize that block as mixed, single-family and rental, this is a step backward, not forward. Weitzel said that the Commission has had direction from the City Council that if it does not take neighborhood concerns into consideration when discussing historic preservation, then it is not doing its job either. Weitzel said the Commission, however, is primarily looking at architectural, aesthetics and historic character issues. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 923 Iowa Avenue, with the stipulation that things may changed based on the site plan. Ponto seconded the motion. Michaud said that she thinks the design looks like a historic duplex. She asked if there would be retaining walls, as one can't really put grass there. McCafferty said that would be part of the next step, the engineering process. She said that she would like to minimize the amount of retaining wall required, but that will be dependent on working out the plan. Roffman said that what is helping a lot is that the Clarks to the east have verbally agreed to let him extend his ramp over the front of their property, which is the lower part of the slope. He said that will then be blended in to work with the topography. Roffman said he would then share access to the ramp with the neighbors. McCafferty said that one of the other issues is working with the City. She said that at this point, the slope of the hill starts right at the sidewalk, which is within the City right-of-way. McCafferty said if she has to cut back to the property line and then back an additional 42 inches, that is where there would be the most retaining wall. She said that if she can work with the Engineering Department to start the sidewalk and ramp right at the City sidewalk, that would help reduce that. McCafferty said that is still in negotiation. She said that the ramp access has to be in the front of the building. Weitzel asked Terdalkar if the Commission has any purview over the type of material used for the retaining wall. Terdalkar said it would have purview if a permit is required. Michaud said that this plan conforms with the density the City allows there; however, it would double the number of tenants. She said that perhaps there could be some stipulation in the leases to restrict times that parties can be held. Swaim said that she likes the look of the proposed building but agreed that it is a substantial increase in the number of tenants. 3 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 4 McCafferty said that when this conservation district was rezoned, the Commission specifically responded to concerns of landlords that if in fact a building was destroyed, that it would not be a down zoning and the owner would not be unable to reconstruct to the same size. She said that is the reason there is not a fayade limit on multi-family. Gunn said that in this conservation district, the size limitations are fairly clearly spelled out. Weitzel confirmed that there are site and scale guidelines. Terdalkar said the guidelines state that the Neighborhood District Guidelines apply to single-family and duplex units. Weitzel said there was a lot of opposition from those owning larger buildings who were concerned that if the building was destroyed in its entirety that there would be a lowering of their potential. Weitzel said that it is a neighborhood conservation zone. Terdalkar said that a neighborhood conservation zone is intended to stabilize the neighborhood with lower density. McCafferty stated that under the current RNS zoning, seven units would be allowed, and Roffman previously had nine units. Terdalkar said that seven units would be allowed if one only considers the land, without parking requirements. McCafferty agreed but said that with what is allowed just basically by doing the numbers in that particular zone, the owner could not go back and build nine units, but the bedrooms under density are not specified, so that is where the density is increased. Weitzel said he assumes this plan reflects the required parking spaces. McCafferty confirmed that it reflects required parking and the required buffering necessary per the zoning code. Gunn asked McCafferty if she thinks the fayade area requirement does not apply here. McCafferty said that when the conservation district was designated, the concern was that if a building was destroyed and the existing fayade square footage was X amount, would the owner then have to go down to Y amount, based upon the neighborhood guidelines, and the owners considered that a down zoning. She said that is her recollection of why the area requirement does not apply to the multi-family, because it would be a de facto down zoning. Weitzel asked Terdalkar if that fayade area requirement would apply, because the guidelines don't allow that. Terdalkar replied that staff feels that the standard as written does not apply; because the introduction states that it applies to single-family and duplex. He said he thought, however, one could say that it does not state that they do not apply to multi-family. McCafferty said that this is an aO-foot lot. She said that legally, based on the zoning, this could be divided into two 40-foot lots. McCafferty said the building proposed is approximately 2,170 square feet, and that is including the roof, which slopes back. She said that the previous building was approximately 1,600 square feet. McCafferty said there are two ways it could be done. She said that forced with this limitation, one could do a 1,600 square foot building on an aO-foot lot or do two three-unit buildings of a 1,200 square foot fayade and get exactly what is proposed. Terdalkar said he had some reservations about whether that could be done. He said that if a building is within 15 feet of a single-family zone, the height of the structure is limited to two and one-half stories per the zoning requirements. Terdalkar said that if one splits the lot and builds a three-unit building on each lot adjacent to a single-family structure, the zoning code limits height of the structure to two and one-half stories. He said that McCafferty is not presenting complete information when she says that one could build two separate buildings by dividing the lot into two small lots McCafferty said that even if there were two single-family houses, there would still be less aggregate square footage in this particular proposal than there would be with two single-family houses. Terdalkar said the intent of the neighborhood guidelines is to limit the size of the front elevation to 1,200 square feet. He said it the guidelines do allow two buildings with 1,200 square feet, as other existing buildings in the area have similar elevation sizes. He said that it is not appropriate to say that the proposed building would be smaller than two separate buildings combined into 2,400 square feet, the overall size of one building should matter. 4 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 5 McCafferty said she is just using this as an example to gauge the size of what is being proposed versus what could be done with two single-family houses. She said this is something that would be of a scale of the smaller sorority houses in the neighborhood so that the scale of the proposed building is not unusual to the College Hill area. Brennan agreed that the scale of the building is similar to other large buildings scattered throughout the neighborhood, some of which are old but most of which are newer. Gunn stated that the guidelines are perfectly clear. He said there was a lengthy discussion when the guidelines were being drafted, and the argument was that because the predominant fa~ade size of a structure in the district is only 1,200 feet, if one has a large apartment building and it burns down, can it be rebuilt. Gunn said the answer is yes, and that is why it says, "and if the structure has a street elevation surface area of 1,200 feet or greater, it may be reconstructed, provided the street area does not exceed the area of the pre-existing primary structure." He said he reads this to say that one can build a building back as big as it was but cannot built it back bigger than it was. Gunn said that to say this whole thing doesn't apply because this is a multi-family building is a stretch that would come from a contorted view of what the guideline is. McCafferty pointed out that the architectural features have been added to this to reduce the perceived scale of this building overall. She said that if one is discussing just the technical square footage, a large portion of it will be such that it is not going to be seen in the same way that one sees a big, flat surface, for instance, with the bays in back receding quite a bit. Weitzel said this building does borrow architectural elements from buildings in the near vicinity. He said one question would be if there are any examples of duplexes. McCafferty pointed out that there are some duplexes around town with a similar concept as that proposed. Weitzel said that the examples show peaked gables facing out and a single roof behind that, cross- gabled, so it is the same design. He said there are architectural elements from the neighborhood and a style that is prevalent in Iowa City. Weitzel asked Terdalkar whether the Commission has any purview over the neighborhood issues. Terdalkar said that if the Commission members feel there is an issue that affects the character of the conservation district, the Commission may consider it. Weitzel said the Commission can therefore talk about the neighborhood issue to a certain extent, but the reasoning has to be made clear when voting. . Swaim said that, in terms of the neighborhood and the number of tenants, she did not know about the other houses and how many bedrooms are in their units. McCafferty said she believes the Clark apartments have one and two-bedroom units. Michaud said that there are three to five-bedroom houses across the street. Swaim said that this is an attractive building that in some ways will fit better into the neighborhood than the very big, three-story building did. She said she is empathetic with the issue of noise. Swaim said it is an issue that a lot of older neighborhoods have to stay on top of and find some good solutions. She said she did not want to single this out as not being a workable project because of the increased number of tenants. Swaim said she would rather find better ways to address the noise issue. Michaud said that, as a landlord, if she puts some restrictions such as quiet hours on her tenants, she has very cooperative tenants. McCafferty said that she feels that better maintained buildings tend to have better, quieter tenants. Roffman discussed the appearance of the building prior to the storm; he said he has always tried to maintain the building and increase the street appeal. Gunn said that in his tenure on the Commission, a lot of times a project has come in and everyone says it is big and really out of scale with the neighborhood, but there is never anything in the guidelines to prevent it from going up. He said that here, it is very clear in the guidelines. Gunn said that this building was big for the neighborhood, and if the new building is constructed, it's going to be bigger. He said that the whole point of controlling the scale is to control the size of the building, and the only way the Commission thought it could be done legally was to define it as front elevation. 5 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 6 Gunn said that if this project is to be 1,600 square feet in its front elevation, as defined in the guidelines, then it's a wonderful building. He said, however, that if it is 2,000 or 2,400, he thinks it is clearly way too big and would vote against it. McCafferty read from the guidelines, "The College Hill Neighborhood District guidelines apply to the College Green Historic District, East College Street District, College Hill Conservation District. They apply to single family and duplex buildings in these neighborhoods." She said she would like to get clarification, as it seems rather clear that it does not apply to multi-family dwellings. McCormally said that there is another large, blue apartment building near the corner of Iowa Avenue and Dodge Street that is still in the same district. He said that the building replaced many smaller buildings, and it is gigantic and has an enormous frontage. Weitzel said that building was constructed well before this was a conservation district. McCafferty agreed and said that regulations have been changed because of that building. Gunn said that there are several apartment buildings within the district larger than the 1,200 square feet, but they all existed prior to the conservation district being established. Weitzel asked Gunn if he would be okay with the building if it were reduced in size. Gunn confirmed this. He said that the original building was big, and this would be bigger. Gunn said he doesn't buy the argument that somehow if one builds a big enough building, the scale doesn't apply, because the lot is big enough. He said that the whole point of the guidelines was not to allow this to happen. Swaim asked clarification about the issue of and the demolished square footage of the front far;ade. Terdalkar said that the front far;ade of the original building is estimated to be about 1,600 square feet. He said the footprint was about 42 feet wide, and the height is about 35 feet. Gunn said that 1,632 would be one thing, but 2,200 square feet is hard to ignore. He said it is a nice looking building, but it's not small, no matter how many bump outs there are on it. Swaim asked about the 2,100 square feet figure and if it comes from not only the front forward far;ade but also anything that is facing north. Gunn confirmed this and said that the roof would also be included. McCafferty said that another option is to make this narrower, but one ends up filling all the recessed areas and ending up with basically one large roofline that will look much more boxy. She said that the plan is for a wider building so that it would fit in the neighborhood. Gunn said this is just flat out making this a whole lot bigger than it was, which absolutely flies in the face of the guidelines. He said that if the Commission approves this, it is saying that the scale doesn't matter. Brennan asked if this was originally two lots that had been joined. Weitzel said it was not; he said it was part of the Governor's Square and was subdivided into this size lot. Brennan said the owner could split this into two lots and put up two 1,200 square foot facades that would be bigger than this. Terdalkar said that the lots can be split, but new buildings would need to comply with all the site requirements and design guidelines. Terdalkar said that from his perspective, the guidelines intend to achieve compatibility. He said that one can certainly build six units, by reducing the number of bedrooms, and reduce the size of the structure which will reduce the number of parking spaces required. Terdalkar said that from his perspective, the scale standard is not limiting anything to add more units than what was there before. He said it is certainly possible. Terdalkar said the question is if it is appropriate to build the maximum possible or something that is compatible with the whole neighborhood. Brennan stated that he thinks this is consistent with other buildings that already exist throughout the entire district as a whole, and that is what the Commission has to look at is the district as a whole. He said the Commission can't just isolate a block here or there, or it makes the meaning of the district disappear. Brennan said that given the consistency, the size, and styling, and that the owner could split this into two lots and have larger massing than what is proposed, he would be inclined to vote in favor of the proposal. 6 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 7 Michaud said she respected Gunn's opinion about the building. She said that McCafferty has done a great job with the blueprints. Michaud proposed that there be some kind of compromise. She said there is one more indentation than seems necessary, and it might look more convincing to do away with the some areas, such as the dining room windows. Michaud said that one of the things that contributes to parties, in her experience, is having a big living room area with a connected dining room and kitchen. Ponto said he likes the looks of this and thinks that from the street this will not have the appearance of the mass that the big box did. He said, however, that he did not think the Commission could go against the guidelines. Ponto pointed out that Section 3.6 has alternative design criteria to allow the Commission to deviate from the guidelines in exceptional circumstance, but he is not convinced that this is an exceptional circumstance. McCafferty said that if the Commission is basing its decision on the 1,600/1,200 square feet issue, she would request an opinion from the legal department on whether this applies to a multi-family building. Weitzel asked if the owner would agree to have the Commission table this issue at this time and have that issue investigated. He said that the Commission could have two meetings this month to reconsider this issue at the second meeting. Roffman said yes. Gunn said he was okay with tabling the proposal. He said that he might be unable to attend the next meeting but added that he would be amazed if the legal opinion is that the guidelines don't allow the control of a new structure in the place of one that was destroyed. Gunn said that would be a ridiculous contortion of the guidelines. Weitzel said that it is important to find out what the Commission's latitude is with these sorts of issues. MOTION: Ponto moved to table consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 923 Iowa Avenue. Gunn seconded the motion. Terdalkar asked if this is the first time such an issue has come up. Weitzel said the Commission considered this with regard to Brad Houser's house on Dodge Street. Weitzel said that the Commission did hold Houser to the height requirements. Terdalkar said that if the intent of the guidelines is to not allow large buildings, then the language should be clarified to reflect that. He said the guidelines should say that it applies to single-family, duplexes or multi-family buildings. The motion to table carried on a vote of 8-0. 726 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar stated that the applicant for this proposal requested deferral of the item at a previous Commission meeting. He said that the application is for the review of windows on a carriage house garage at the back of the property. Terdalkar stated that this is an Iowa City landmark property and part of a conservation district. He said that the windows that were used as replacements are vinyl windows. Terry Stumpf of Stumpf Construction introduced himself and Tim Taffe, the owner of the house. Stumpf said that he was the contractor for this project. He said he was at the house for another project, but Taffe had told him that the windows didn't open and could not be cleaned. Stumpf said he looked across the alley and saw a new structure with vinyl windows, and he didn't give it a thought. Stumpf said that he just left the existing frames outside and nothing would change; he put the vinyl sash in to have a functional window with the least amount of money spent. He said he did not think about the house being in a historic district. Stumpf said he has never put vinyl windows in a new structure but does think there is a place for them, and he just didn't think about putting this in a garage. He said the windows are all up high, and all the original trim and wood jambs are left. Stumpf said he believes that the garage was built in the 1970s, based on the material and subflooring, on the existing foundation where an old garage used to be. He said the windows apparently came from an 7 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 8 old house. Stumpf said this is in the back alley where no one can see it. He said there is also a vinyl window on the south end of the house. Taffe said that his house is the prettiest house on Iowa Avenue. He said that the last two owners haven't cared about the house. Taffe said that when he bought the house, it had a sagging front porch with rotten pillars and beams. He said that Stumpf has put the porch back together with new concrete, and now it is level. Taffe said that all of the tongue and groove is exactly the same dimension as it was before. Taffe said that on the roof, the bottoms of the dormers were all rotten, and he had Stumpf fix that and replace the trim where it was missing. Taffe said the house is a gem, and he is making it a lot better than it was before. Taffe said that the garage in the back is not a gem and is not a carriage house. He said that it is a two-car rollup door garage. Taffe said he loves the house, but the garage is not the house. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of vinyl windows at 726 Iowa Avenue, as proposed, because the garage was built in the 1970s and is on the back alley. Michaud seconded the motion. Gunn asked how the Commission would know that this is a 1970s garage. Terdalkar responded that the contractor can tell the best by the kind of materials used. He said that it cannot be determined by the exterior appearance. Terdalkar said he checked the Sanborn maps, and there appears to be a similar footprint on the site after 1930, so if this is a new structure it may have been built upon an older foundation. He stated that the site inventory form for the landmark designation does not mention any of the outbuildings on the site. Weitzel said that he is familiar with Stumpfs work and is prepared to accept what he says as legitimate and right on target. Gunn asked what the guidelines say, since this is not a historic structure. Weitzel added that this is a conservation district, and Terdalkar added that this is a landmark property. Weitzel said the outbuilding is from the 1970s, so it can't be contributing to the landmark status of this building. He said therefore the Commission only needs to be concerned with whether it detracts from the building. Weitzel said that an outbuilding can be part of the landmark, but if it is not mentioned on the inventory form, there is no way that it contributes. He recommended that the Commission consider this as it would any other non-historic structure in a conservation district. Weitzel said that it does not affect that landmark, just historically speaking. Swaim agreed that this does not distract from the house. She said it is sort of like the neighborhood issue discussed before. Swaim said that often someone replaces something not knowing that it needed to go through design review, even though homeowners received a letter from the City. She said she wondered how other cities dealt with this issue. Weitzel said the Commission should look into that and also redouble its efforts to make sure notification is getting out there. Terdalkar said the Commission could double its efforts to inform people but asked if ignorance should be an excuse for everything. Weitzel said that in the past there has been a problem with distinguishing whether something was done intentionally or not, but he did not feel that is the case here. Terdalkar said the only reason this is being reviewed is because it is not allowed to install vinyl windows in the guidelines. Weitzel pointed out that is why the Commission meets - because it has to make leniencies and considerations that can't be accounted for in a flowchart. Brennan asked what happened with the house on Grant Street that had vinyl windows installed. Terdalkar said the owner replaced them with approved winodws. Brennan asked why this building is different. Weitzel said that the house on Grant Street involved the contributing structure itself. Michaud said that was the primary structure, while this is a garage. 8 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 9 Brennan said there is no distinction according to the guidelines. Weitzel said that the building on Grant was also a historic building itself, and this garage is not. Brennan said the guidelines say there is no difference. Weitzel said the main purpose of this is to be concerned with detracting from history and with detracting from the appearance of the neighborhood. He said he does not see how that is changed by putting vinyl windows in a garage. Weitzel said that vinyl siding has been allowed on new structures in conservation districts. He said the Commission is allowed the latitude to interpret the guidelines. Swaim asked how many windows were installed in this house. Stumpf responded that there were three: one is a twin/double window on the south and a single window on the alley. Taffe said the twin windows face his garden, and the single window faces on the alley. Weitzel said that, first and foremost, he is looking at what this does to the neighborhood and what it does to the history of the landmark. He said that in both cases, he does not see that it does anything negative. Weitzel said that if the Commission is going to follow the guidelines and penalize people who otherwise are doing the right thing with their structures, then the City will not back the Commission on the guidelines, and they'll be turned over again and again. He said he does not see it as productive to fight this and be pedantic about the guidelines in a case where the spirit of the guidelines is being fulfilled. Terdalkar said he agreed with that but said that the Commission decisions should be consistent, and the guidelines should be amended to include such exceptions. Weitzel said that historic preservation involves a case by case analysis, and one must consider the context in which something is looked at. Brennan said that the impact of seeing something from the street disappeared from the guidelines or the ordinance in the last revision. He said that the structural framework of the case by case analysis is the guidelines. MOTION: Michaud moved to call the question. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion to call the Question carried on a vote of 8-0. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto moved to amend the main motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of vinyl windows at 726 Iowa Avenue, as proposed, in keeping with the spirit of Section 3.3, exceptions for non-historic properties, since this is a non-historic garage that is not part of the landmark primary building. Michaud seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1. with Brennan votina no. Swaim volunteered to do some research on how other communities handle these types of issues. 919 East Washinaton Street. Terdalkar said the applicant for this certificate of appropriateness requested deferral of this item. The consensus of the Commission was to defer this item indefinitely. 822 Rundell Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Clark Street Conservation District. He said the application is to replace nine of the existing wood windows on the house with vinyl windows. Rebecca Routh, the owner of the house, said she moved into the house in June and loved the historic neighborhood. She said that nothing was said to her at the time that the Historic Preservation Commission would have to approve the windows. Routh said she was concerned about the state of the windows when she moved in and was unaware when she ordered the windows from Sears that the windows had to be approved. Routh said the salesman suggested casement windows, because they are less expensive, but she wanted to preserve the look of the windows, although she did choose the less expensive option of vinyl. She said that the panes and screens on the windows are broken, and she is unable to open about 2/3 of the windows because of the swelling. 9 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 10 Weitzel said that the Commission specifically disallows vinyl windows on contributing structures and in general, without exception, unless there are extenuating circumstances. He pointed out that there are numerous other replacement-type windows, and the Commission allows wood or aluminum-clad wood. The Sears guy asked if vinyl windows are allowed anywhere on the house. Terdalkar said that basement windows are allowed to be vinyl-clad windows but only on non-contributing structures. Michaud asked if these windows have been ordered or installed or both. The Sears guy said that the owner has placed an order for the windows, and they have arrived but not been installed yet. He said that the windows were built for this home. Terdalkar said that he discussed the guidelines with the Sears representative, Jennifer Stanley. Terdalkar said he provided her with of the web link for the guidelines and the application, and she does know that the guidelines apply to all of these applications. Terdalkar said that when he received the application, he again called to let another representative know that vinyl windows are not allowed. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 822 Rundell Street, as submitted. Ponto seconded the motion. Ponto said that this is much more clear cut as far as what the guidelines do and do not allow than the previous application. Brennan agreed it is clear that this is not allowed. He suggested the owner contact her real estate agent and let him know about this. Brennan said that because this is an ordinance and not something in the title to the property, it is not really the seller's obligation to inform a buyer of this, but the buyer's representative in the process would want to be aware of all the pertinent laws that cover it. Weitzel said that even if the owner is not aware of a designation, he is still required to treat the historic property properly. Swaim asked if the windows were custom built to specific sizes for this house. The Sears guy confirmed this. He said that Sears only sells vinyl windows. Weitzel said that vinyl windows are not allowed by the Secretary of the Interior Standards, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation cites all kinds of reasons why vinyl windows are inferior to wood windows. Swaim said this is another case where the word has to get out before changes are made. Terdalkar said that this year, besides letters to property owners, we have sent letters to the real estate agents in town. Terdalkar said the guidelines first recommend repair of the windows, and if not reparable, recommend replacement of the sashes, and the windows with wood. He said the commission has also allowed metal- clad windows. Weitzel encouraged the owner to work with Terdalkar regarding window contractors and window products. The motion failed on a vote of 0-8. 520 Grant Street. Terdalkar distributed a page that was missing from the packet regarding option two for the porch on this project. He said that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. Terdalkar said the Commission discussed this project in April, and it was deferred at that time to allow for revisions from the applicant. He said that at that time, the Commission approved the replacement of the aluminum siding on the house with fiber cement board, although the Commission asked the applicant to investigate the possibility of maintaining the wood underneath. Terdalkar said the applicant is proposing two options: one is to construct a porch across the full length of the structure in front, and the other is to build a smaller portico and also includes the construction of a building about the full length of the building in the back, a deck with a screened porch about 14 feet by 12 feet in the footprint, and installing actual windows in the existing screened porch, which currently uses storm windows. He said that part of the screened porch is set back, and the deck is not set back. 10 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 11 Ben Lewis, the owner of the house, said that he received an insurance claim for damage to the siding as a result of the hailstorm two years ago. He said that the aluminum awning on the building is beaten up and has a big hole in it; he thought it was put on in the 1960s when the siding was installed. Lewis said that 85 to 90% of the houses on the street have front porches of some type, and he felt that a front porch would be really practical, particularly because the front entrance is the main entrance to the house. Lewis said the full front porch idea came from a magazine that showed a full front porch on a house that is identical to his. He said he thought that would give a little more space, although he is not tied to the idea of the posts or stones or anything like that. Lewis said the preferred option would be to have the porch go the full length of the house. He said he has discussed this with Terdalkar, who came up with the portico option. Lewis said that would be the biggest change to the house; the deck and the porch in the back are not hugely significant to him. Weitzel said there is a stairway leading from the garage up into the screened porch and asked if there are details planned for the railing. Lewis said that he did not have specific plans but thought the style of the railing should match what exists there now. Weitzel asked how many steps are there. Terdalkar said there appear to be five risers. Weitzel said that in that case, HIS would require a building rail according to the universal building code. Terdalkar said it would need to be something grippable to meet the dimensional requirements. He said that it can be added to the existing railing or part of the handrail. Weitzel said that something in the style of what is there looks like it would comply. Michaud asked what the deck level of the screened porch would be. Lewis replied that it would be level with the door bottom. Michaud said that she likes the full front porch look and understand the desire to optimize the space. Terdalkar said that proposal was deferred at the April meeting, because the Commission did not feel the full porch would be compatible with the style of the house. He said that as the applicant was not able to attend the meeting, the Commission deferred the application to allow the owner to come up with an alternative. Terdalkar said that generally these Cape Code style houses would not have a large front porch, instead they have just an enhanced entry way or a small portico to guard the entry way, which is similar to option two. He said that additions for this type of house are generally built on the side, similar to the existing screened porch addition to this house. Terdalkar said that the site constraints don't allow for another addition on the side; therefore staff believes that it should be allowable to build a front porch but not a full- width porch. McCormally said that he has seen Cape Cods with full porches on the front before. He asked Terdalkar to elaborate on that. Terdalkar said that if a front porch is included in the plan for a Cape Cod, it is included within the main footprint of the house. He said it is built as a recessed porch within the main building. Terdalkar said that this house would require major roof renovations in order to make it work. Weitzel said this house was built in the 1930s. He said that the sun porch was built with the house originally, as was determined previously. Terdalkar agreed and said that is the compatible way to enlarge this house. McCormally said he believed that an addition on the front of some sort would make the house more attractive. Terdalkar said that if it can be done to serve the needed function and is compatible with the style of the house that would be the way to do it. He recommended the second option. Terdalkar said that in this neighborhood, many of the houses built during this time were from mail order catalogues like Sears Modern Homes. He said that book included a model showing porches of many styles, one of which shows a front-gabled porch with a pitch to match with the main roof. Lewis said there are several houses in Iowa City with an enclosed porch with one of these gables, but he doesn't think they look good. He said he took Terdalkar's suggestion and found one that he thought he could use. 11 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 12 Lewis asked if anyone knew how much more expensive the full width of the house porch would be. Weitzel said that would require the redesigning of the roof, and that would be terribly expensive. Lewis said he was okay with the smaller option. Gunn said the bigger porch would cost three to four times as much as the smaller porch. Weitzel said he believes the smaller porch would fit the function in that it would be a cover over the door. Michaud asked if the porticoes would have a flat roof. Weitzel said it would be pitched inside - like a small hip. Gunn said this would be about a 3:12 pitch. Terdalkar said that, depending on the height of the porch and the eaves of the main roof, it could have a 2: 12 pitch or a 3: 12 pitch. Michaud asked if there is already a room on the other side of the house. Terdalkar showed the existing screened porch with the deck that is there now. Weitzel asked if the proposal is to change out the windows. Lewis confirmed this. He said that he wants to keep the style and keep the windows exactly the same size. Lewis said he had thought about doing some type of addition on the back, because he needs some additional space in the house. Lewis said that structurally, he has to fix the walls and the windows on this room in any case, because the wood below the windows is rotting. He said the idea would be to make the room more weatherproof. Michaud asked about the windows in the screened porch. Terdalkar said that they are like storm windows. He said that they need rebuild the framework for the porch structure to install windows. Weitzel said that with that much glass, this would always be a three-season porch - that it would be hard to make the room weather tight. Weitzel said that what is before the Commission is a porch on the front of the house, a deck on the back, a screened porch on the back, and a proposal to redesign the sun porch to be able to hold windows. He said that it is not a window replacement really, because it is changing the structure to hold windows that are functionally different than what is there now. Lewis said the contractor has stated that one can get windows that look just like the ones that are there. He said that they operate like storm windows now. . Weitzel suggested holding off on the screened porch. He said there are ways to make it work, but it would be involved, and the owner might want to discuss it with his contractor and Terdalkar before the Commission reviews it. Lewis said he was putting it out there to find out if it would ever be a possibility. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 520 Grant Street, as submitted, using option two for the front porch instead of option one, but including parts three and four, with details to be approved by staff or submitted to the Commission in a subsequent application. McCormally seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 923 Dearborn Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a non-contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. He said the application is to install two skylights on the house, one each on the north and south sides of the roof. Terdalkar said that the skylights would be approximately two feet by three feet. Weitzel said the Commission recently approved other work on this house. Terdalkar confirmed that a rear addition was approved last year and is completed. Weitzel said the Commission didn't find the house to be of a significant type or style. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 923 Dearborn Street, as submitted. Gunn seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 609 Brown Street. Terdalkar said that this is an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a fence, because it would be over six feet high. He said the original application was to build a ten-foot tall fence, which is not permitted by the Code; the maximum fence height permitted by the Code is eight feet. 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 13 Terdalkar said the applicant was asked to revise the height, or the applicant could have attached it to the house, and effectively called it a wall extension. However such a 'wall' is required to have a proper foundation. He said the applicant therefore decided to lower the height of the fence to eight feet, and that is the application in front of the Commission. Terdalkar said that the work was started without a permit and had to be stopped. He said the applicant now plans to reduce the height of the fence. Ponto said that he wants to report 'ex parte' communication as the owner had contacted him to ask for his opinion on this. Ponto said he informed him that he could not speak for the Commission and suggested he speak with Terdalkar. Ponto said the owner wanted a fence of six feet or less but where it meets the house, have it match the roof pitch and the rafter tail details, and he wanted it high there for a privacy screen, because the neighbors' dining room window looks directly into his back door. Gunn suggested that the owner consider using plantings for a privacy screen. Gunn asked about the door in the proposal. Terdalkar said that is the door within the fence, but it is not attached to the house, although it is very close to the house. Gunn asked if the door is part of the application, and Terdalkar confirmed this. Swaim asked if it is the L-shaped doorway that the Commission is reviewing. Terdalkar confirmed this, saying that because the western section of the fence is only six feet high it is not part of the review. He said that only the taller section of the fence, which would essentially be a doorway, is under review. Michaud asked if nine inches or so could be taken off the rafter so that the notch would be removed. Ponto said that the notch matches what is existing on the arts and crafts house. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the revised plans, as submitted, for the project at 609 Brown Street. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 805 East Washinaton Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said the Commission is reviewing the rebuilding of a garage on the property that was damaged significantly in the recent tornado. Terdalkar said the applicant explained to him that he wanted to rebuild the garage as it was, but the proposed drawing does not show that. Terdalkar showed a photograph of the garage as it was the day after the tornado. He said that the wall on the side of the house and the roof collapsed, so the owner had to take down the structure because much of it was unstable. Terdalkar said the owner did save much of the brick. Terdalkar pointed out that a detail on the previous garage that is unique to the garage is not included in the plans. He said it matches the pitch of the house roof on the dormer, and it is in style with the craftsman details on the house. Terdalkar said there is a possibility that the garage was built at the same time or right after the house was built. Terdalkar said this application was submitted for HRDP Emergency Grant, and at that time, it was determined that the house and the garage together would be eligible for a National Register property. He said this was one of the houses built by a builder named a.H. Carpenter. Terdalkar said he believes this was a matching garage, and therefore, details similar to that on the house and the original garage should be used for new garage. He said that it had a detailed parapet and some crenellation, and these details can be repeated with the brick that has been salvaged. Terdalkar said that if the garage needs to be widened to allow for parking a vehicle, that could be done, so that there is room to revise this plan. He said he suggested that possibility to the owner, who wanted to submit something new, but that has not yet been done, possibly because the owner lives out of town. Terdalkar suggested that the Commission defer this, since the owner has not yet provided a response. He said the owner has been very cooperative about rebuilding the house. 13 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 14 The consensus of the Commission was to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the garage at 805 East Washington Street. MINUTES FOR AUGUST 10. 2006 MEETING. The consensus of the Commission was to file the minutes of the August 10, 2006 meeting, as written. OTHER: Weitzel said that the window restoration workshop would be held Saturday at 1 :00 p.m. at the Craft Guild Building at 815 Oakland Avenue. He said that a PIN grant is being used to sponsor the seminar regarding re-glazing and weather stripping of windows. Weitzel stated that after the last meeting, he discussed holding the awards ceremony this fall with Helen Burford. Terdalkar said that Buford is reserving a room in the Library for the ceremony for late November or early December. Terdalkar said that a subcommittee is being formed for the National Trust and Friends of Historic Preservation Grant. He said that Michael Maharry and Mike Haverkamp will be on the subcommittee, and possibly two people from the Historic Preservation Commission will be needed for the subcommittee. Terdalkar said the subcommittee will be working on a timeline for the awards, as well as doing the awards themselves and providing a response to the National Trust as to what was done with the money. Terdalkar said that ten applications have been received so far. He said the funds consist of $5,000 from the National Trust, as well as a $5,000 match from Friends of Historic Preservation. Weitzel said that he thought the work could be done in a few hours. He said that the subcommittee would be deciding which projects should get funding and how much each should get. Gunn volunteered to work on the subcommittee but said that he could not attend a meeting during the day. Terdalkar said he would send an e-mail to Commission members regarding the subcommittee meeting date and time so that members could decide if they would be willing to attend. He said that he would also put the applications on the website. Terdalkar said that there was a suggestion from a professor in the Planning Department to invite the Chair of the Sioux City Historic Preservation Commission, who is also the Chair of the Sioux City Economic Development Committee, to arrange for her to give a public address. Terdalkar said that she was going to be in town the first week of October to give a lecture to students. Weitzel asked Terdalkar to coordinate that with Burford to ensure that it is advertised. Terdalkar said that there would be a statewide preservation conference in Dubuque on Friday and Saturday and asked if anyone would like to attend. Weitzel said that he was interested but he could not. Terdalkar said that a CLG application was submitted for the Manville Heights Survey. He said that there had to be approval for the resolution, and the City match for this would be about $8,000. Weitzel said the City Council has expressed concern that this not become another GilberULinn Street issue. Terdalkar said the project timeline was revised per City Council direction to state that the designation recommendations and nomination papers will be sent to the SHSI office after review and approval by the City Council. He added that the City Council has also directed to notify property owners by certified mail about such designation. Weitzel asked if that can be done as part of the informational meetings, and Terdalkar confirmed this but all the property owners affected by this action will receive individual letters. Swaim asked about the second round of HRDP Emergency grants. Terdalkar said that the SHSI office has not announced it yet, as the contracts from the first round have been finalized or signed yet. 14 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 15 Terdalkar said that after the long process of asbestos abatement, the sorority building at 828 E. Washington Street is to be demolished in the next week or two. Swaim asked about the house at 17 South Governor. Terdalkar said he has drafted a follow-up memo/petition to HIS to investigate why the house has not yet been stabilized. Michaud asked about 903 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said that the building has been stabilized and boarded up, and they are working on some smaller repairs. He said the owner is working with the insurance company on some issues and is also doing some work on the property. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte pcd/min utes/hpcl2006/09-14-09 .doc 15 == Q .... ~ ~ .... 6 6"0 Q """ u 8 ==~ .s ~ ~ .....yQ ===Q C=N ~"O ~ == ~ ~ """;:: ~< .... """ Q .... ~ .... == = ~ = ..,. e: I I I I I I .... ~ ~ I ><: I I ><: ><: I ><: I ><: 0 I ><: 0\ 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 ><: -- go 0 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"- 0 I I I I I I I = I I I I I I I l'f') I I I I I I I .... ><: 0 ><: I ><: I I I ><: I ><: I ><: ~ I ><: -- l"- I I I I I I I = I I I I I I I M I I I I I ~ I I SS ><: ><: ~ I ><: I I I ><: I I ><: ><: I ><: I I I I I 0 I I = I I I I I I I go 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 III I ~ I I I I I I ~ t! ><: ><: ><: I ><: I I ><: I ><: I ><: I I III I I I I I I I 0 = I I I I I I I go I I I I I ~ I I I I .... ><: ><: ><: I ><: ~ I I I I I I I I ><: -- III I I I I 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 ~ -- III 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 ><: I I I I ~ III I I 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 I t! ><: ><: ><: 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 l'f') 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 I I I I I,Q I ~ ~ I I I I I .... I ><: ><: ><: ><: I I 0 ><: I I I 0 ><: -- l'f') I I I I I I = I I I I I I M I ~ ~ I I I I I t! I ><: ><: ><: ><: 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 I ~ ~ I I I 0 ><: M I I I I I I = I I I I I I CI'I I I I I I I .... I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: I I ><: ~ I I I 0 ><: -- .... I I I I I I = I I I I I I en CI'I 00 r- I,Q r- oo I,Q 00 0- r- I"- CI'I 0- CI'I I,Q 00 E .~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 -- 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; ~ ~ 0- 0- 0- 0- CI'I 0- 0- 0- 0- N ~ ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f-<{.1.l -- -- -- -- -- M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M .?;o ~ = E G.l .. ~ t' 'ii g, E ~ = .= E '0 Q .. = ~ 'ii = ~ G.l .... 's 1S ~ = Q = .. ~ .. t: E G.l = '" G.l .c U Q G.l Q .. E '" .tl OJ J.l G.l i: Q = U .c '0 ... .c '; '" = .. ... ... Q '~ '~ ~ .. ~ .. -= ~ ~ ... ~ ~ = ... ~ Q = = U ~ ~ .. Q rn rn Eo< ~ ~ I;r;< j:l." j:l." Z r.J ~ Clll --i ~ ~ ~ --i =-: --i --i ~ ~ ~ --i ~ "0 Cl) .... tIl Cl) =' ~~~ u "'"' s ~'E Cl) r:::~~ ==~~~ ~ Cl) ~ 0 0 ~$<ZZ .. ~ < II II II ~II II ~~ : ~><OOZ: MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Tim Toomey, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Gunn, John McCormally, Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Joseph Codr, Ann Estin, James Estin, Alison Ames Galstad, Susan Lutgendorf, Shelly McCafferty, Beth Rapson, John Roffman, Mike Waltz CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. The election of officers was deferred until later in the meeting by consensus of the Commission. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Appropriateness: 923 Iowa Avenue. MOTION: Ponto moved to take consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for 923 Iowa Avenue up from the table. Brennan seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Terdalkar referred to the memorandum, issued at the request of the Commission, in the packet containing an opinion from the Zoning Interpretation Panel regarding the guidelines. He said that the Panel has basically said that the guideline in Section 8.2 is not applicable to this project. Terdalkar said the Panel rendered that opinion because there is a particular section for multi-family buildings and their design in the guidelines and also because there is a sentence in the guidelines in Section 8.2 that says that those guidelines refer to single-family and duplex buildings. However, he said that the design guidelines for multi-family buildings do address the issues of scale, mass, and height of the proposed building, so the Commission may choose to apply those guidelines in this case. Weitzel re-stated, for clarification, that Section 8.2 is from the College Hill Neighborhood Guidelines, which do not apply, according to the Panel. He said, however, that Section 10, Design Guidelines for Multi-Family buildings, does allow the Commission to consider the effect on the neighborhood. Weitzel said that correspondence was received from Frank Gersh and Susan Lutgendorf. He said the Commission also received a petition stating that the undersigned had concerns that the scale and mass of the proposed apartment building will enable the property owners to double the number of tenants and that Iowa Avenue has become dominated by student renters and that the few remaining single-family homeowners feel increasingly embattled and isolated. Weitzel said the petitioners argue that the aesthetic architectural guidelines for historic preservation and conservation should ultimately be in the service of quality of life and also intend to help stabilize neighborhoods that contain mixed owner-occupied homes and rental properties. He said the petitioners state that they consider the mass of the building proposed for 923 Iowa to violate the spirit of these principles and hope the Commission will seriously consider the spirit of Section 8 of the guidelines. Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 2 Weitzel said there is also a proposal by Susan Lutgendorf that the Commission defer consideration of this item, based on the number of people who may be absent from the meeting. Public Comment: Susan Lutgendorf stated that she wanted to underscore some of the things written in the letter. She said that she has always considered the 900 block of Iowa Avenue to be an ideal place to live. Lutgendorf said it is easy to bike and walk to downtown, and this is an ideal block for families to live on. Lutgendorf said it is real important to her to preserve the quality of life on that block and to stabilize the neighborhood. She said she was glad to see that there is a provision in the guidelines that does relate to mass and size of building, because her concern is that the massive structure that is proposed, something about the sheer size of it and the fact that it is going to be substantially larger than the building that was previously there, really changes the character of that neighborhood. Lutgendorf said it introduces a larger apartment building, and she feels that it really does further destabilize the neighborhood. Lutgendorf said her great concern is that the Commission has made its own guidelines for stabilization of neighborhoods, and she did not see anything in this matter so urgent as to cause the Commission to renege on the guidelines that it has made. Lutgendorf said she understands that the owner of the property is allowed to replace the number of units that he previously had, and that is his economic prerogative. She said, however, that if there were nine people there before, why could there not be three apartment units of three people each or six apartment units of two people each. Lutgendorf said that just because there is a certain number of bedrooms, that does not mean there will only be one person residing in that bedroom. Lutgendorf said that the amount to which the population density will be increased could be quite massive. She strongly requested that the Commission honor its own guidelines regarding the character of the building and the character of the neighborhood. Alison Ames Galstad said that she has lived on this block for about 14 years. She said she chose this area, because it is a mixed neighborhood and because it is walking distance from downtown. Galstad said that as a property owner, she respects what the City is trying to do in terms of historic preservation. She said she is disappointed to see people stepping away from the intent of those guidelines. Galstad said that in the case of her neighborhood, she hoped that the Commission would stand up for the intent of the guidelines. She said that it is of great concern to see the population density here increase so drastically. Shelly McCafferty, the consultant for the applicant, provided some revised handouts for the Commission. She reminded the Commission that its purview is the architecture, and the scale, design, and mass of the architecture. McCafferty said it is not the Commission's purview to look at the underlying zoning code or the housing code. McCafferty said that this neighborhood is not all single-family houses or all smaller scale houses. She showed some photographs of other buildings and said that as one stands at the end of Iowa Avenue, there are a couple of large buildings in view that are substantially larger than what the applicant proposes. McCafferty said that Washington Street has additional large buildings, varying from 50 to 75 feet in width. She stated that a larger scale building is not necessarily out of place in this neighborhood. McCafferty said she has been working on revising this building to make it smaller, based on previous public comments. She showed an illustration of the proposed building surrounded by blue lines to represent the previous proposal. McCafferty said the width of just the front fa~ade without the bays would be 46 feet; the original building at the front was 42 feet. Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 3 McCafferty also showed an illustration of how the proposed building relates to the previous building, represented by red lines. She stated that the front elevation area of the proposed building would be 1,656, and her best estimate of the front elevation area of the original building is 1,646. McCafferty said that the front wall area, which excludes the roof, would now be within 50 square feet of what it was previously. She said that the typical eave height would actually be three feet lower than that of the previous building. McCafferty said that the roof height as the Building Department would measure it would be four feet lower than the previous building. She said the only dimension that is not less than what the previous building had is the width; the new building would be just four feet wider than what the previous building was, excluding the base. McCafferty showed the side elevation of the building. She showed the base laid out in the lighter lines on the left and right of the building and on the side elevation. McCafferty showed examples of bays on buildings in Iowa City. She showed the bays from the side and showed how from the front, they are essentially not visible and do not contribute to the perceived mass of the buildings. McCafferty said that to look at the straight elevation and measure it is not really an accurate portrayal of what the perception of the scale of the building will be from the street. McCafferty showed what the building would look like in three dimensions. She said that mostly what one would see is the porch and the front projecting gables. McCafferty showed examples of flat elevations of various buildings. She said that seen in three dimensions, the sense of scale of the buildings is significantly different. McCafferty said this proposal is for a building that is not a solid mass, as the previous building was. She said that it is a little bit wider but is more articulated, however. McCafferty said that one's perception of the building as seen from the street is actually going to appear smaller than what it was previously. She said that is what should be discussed: the scale, the perception of scale, and how it relates to the neighborhood. Lutgendort asked McCafferty if she had a side overlay of what the side of the building would look like as compared to the previous building. McCafferty said that she did not have photographs of the side of the previous building. Lutgendort said that she will be experiencing the building from the side, not from the street. McCafferty said that the previous building would probably have gone back to the middle of the large center bay. She said the exterior back wall was previously about at the middle of the center bay. McCafferty said the depth would increase from 40 feet to 69 feet. McCafferty said that there are screening requirements to mitigate having multi-family next to single-family. She said there is a required setback of 15 feet from the side property line, but this will actually be at 21 feet at the base and 24 feet at the largest mass of the building. McCafferty said there is a screening requirement for parking, but she also put in screening along the property line where the building is. She showed another larger, over story tree that she said will further diminish the appearance of the back of the building from the street. Beth Rapson asked how the placement of the building on the lot would relate to the building that was there before. She said she is the person who will be most impacted by this building, as it will take away light and privacy and will add noise and a structure where there was open space before. McCafferty said she did not know exactly where that building was before, as she did not have exact dimensions. She said that it would go back a little bit further and would be a little bit closer, maybe three or four feet. John Roffman, the owner of the property, said that the west line would not be a whole lot different than it was on the previous building. He said there was an addition on the east with that offset, and there was still side yard beyond that. Roffman said there is only a seven-foot side yard over there now, and to that front porch there would have been about ten, so it would be about three feet less there, so it might be a foot closer. Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 4 Michaud asked if the space where the rear shed was located would be used. Roffman responded that it was part of the building; it was not a shed. He said he would be using that space and then perhaps another foot to the right. Michaud asked if it would be one foot closer for the most extreme bay on the west side. Roffman replied that that would be his best guess. Regarding light and so forth, McCafferty said that at the portion of the building adjacent to the single- family house, there should actually be more light. She said that it will not be as tall of a building overall, and it is also going to have a slope on it. McCafferty agreed that there will be more length. Michaud asked if going from nine efficiency units or single-bedrooms to three-bedroom units has all been cleared with the zoning plan. McCafferty said that it all within the zoning code. Weitzel said that it is Neighborhood Stabilization 20. McCafferty said this is allowed under the baseline zoning, and what the Commission is looking at here is really the mass and scale of the building. Michaud asked if the footprint is then not relevant. Weitzel said that under Section 10, the Commission can look at front setback; lighting; parking; parking below buildings; garages; building orientation; pedestrian access; balconies and decks; building height; mass; roofline; building modulation, which is the street elevation setback; window fenestration and architectural style. He said there is also a series of building point items to be awarded to a multi-family building. Terdalkar said that the building has already been determined to qualify for the required minimum points. Carlson asked if there is anything in the Commission's purview that would relate to building depth. Weitzel said the Commission never has traditionally been able to do that, except for in the Summit Street District where it is specified in the guidelines. Terdalkar said the Commission can consider the mass of the building, which is the overall size of the building-all about the height, scale, and depth of the building. Michaud said that square footage is therefore relevant. Terdalkar read from the Building Mass/Height item of the Design Guidelines for Multi- Family Buildings, "Measures should be incorporated into the design of a new building that help to reduce its visual mass and overall height. Examples include 1) holding the height of the eave line down by making the upper floor of a building a half story and utilizing dormers to accommodate the use of the floor area, 2) stepping the height of the taller building down to two stories at ends adjacent to existing buildings that are two stories or lower in height, 3) providing significant variations in the roofline and front building plane which help to reduce the scale of the building along the streetscape." Terdalkar said these measures can be incorporated into the design, and this is not an exhaustive list of what can be done. McCafferty stated that although application of the 1,600 square foot front elevation language in the preservation handbook may not have been correct in terms of saying it only applies to single-family and duplex buildings, the reason it dealt with the square footage of the front fac;ade and not with anything dealing with depth was to ensure that a multi-family property that was destroyed could be reconstructed and that the depth was something that was specifically not addressed. She said that the specific intent was to only deal with the square footage of the front fac;ade, and this proposal is within that, regardless of whether it would be applicable here or not. Weitzel said that this [application] was tabled to get a clarification of whether the fac;ade square footage guideline applied here. He said that it does not, but the building height and mass standard section 10.1 can be applied. Weitzel said the Commission is charged with whether or not this building and this design meet these guidelines. Lutgendorf asked, with respect to the mass issues, if there is any way that the mass consideration can be thought of with respect to the depth and if the architectural design issue can be applied with respect to the depth to make it a less massive building from the side. She said that Section 10 of the guidelines has to do with ways to make a building more architecturally appealing. Terdalkar said it doesn't just limit the Commission to review the architectural features. He said the section states that one way to reduce the overall height is to step down a building that IS adjacent to a lower building, so that does address the overall mass. Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 5 Lutgendorf said that, as someone who is going to be impacted by the mass of this building, if one just considers how big this is going to be, she would ask the Commission to consider whether there is any way to scale this back. Regarding the dimensions of the building, Terdalkar said the dimensions for the front elevation, as shown on the drawings distributed today, do not include the overall width of the building. He said the dimensions do not include the projections [referred as bays by the applicant], and for the sake of clarification, the guidelines define the area of the elevation as the entire front elevation shown on a drawing, so the faded lines should be included in the elevation. Roffman's attorney asked if there was an updated staff report since the last meeting. Terdalkar said the memorandum from the Zoning Interpretation Panel was included in the packet. Regarding the revised proposal, he said that he just received it as the commission members, so that he cannot comment on the new plan. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the revised plan for the building at 923 Iowa Avenue, as presented. Brennan seconded the motion. Ponto said he likes what McCafferty has done to minimize the visual mass from the street. He said he remains concerned about the length of this. Ponto said his personal interpretation of mass would include three dimensional, so that the length of this is still a concern. Ponto said this is a real exceptional case, because, in general, the guidelines do not allow a demolition permit until the Commission has first approved the replacement building. He said that because of the tornado damage, the Commission deemed this an exceptional case and went ahead and approved the demolition permit before there was a plan. Ponto said that if he had seen this plan before the demolition permit was approved, he does not think he would have voted for it, because he would have thought this is much bigger than the previous building, and he would have wanted to see something more in the three- dimensional mass of the previous building. Baker asked if, in Section 10.1 under building height and mass where it says, "Design of the new building to help reduce its visual mass," visual mass includes the side view. Weitzel said that Terdalkar's opinion is that architectural mass is the 360 degree view. Weitzel said that as McCafferty pointed out earlier, when the Commission looked at these guidelines, there was discussion about limiting buildings and their size, and that is not specifically in these district guidelines. McCafferty said her recollection is that depth is not one of the dimensions that the Commission was going to enforce in a conservation district; it was the front dimension that was of primary concern. Toomey stated that this is a big increase in density. He said that comes with the accompanying baggage of having to supply parking, and that impacts the neighborhood too when there is not a yard but a concrete pad. Toomey said this would have a major impact on the neighborhood. Ponto said that a counterargument would be that the Commission has always allowed additions on to the back, many of which have had additions a third as large as the house. He said that if there was a request to add a third again addition to the back of the original building, that would approximate this. Ponto said, however, that most additions would not have the same height, would have a somewhat smaller scale, and would probably be set back as well. Toomey asked if this was built as a single-family house. Carlson stated that the core of this structure was built as a single-family house, but it was expanded to a fraternity in the 1920s, and that is when the third and one-half story was added. Brennan said that the neighborhood, as defined in the district, runs along Iowa and Washington from Johnson to Muscatine, on College from Governor to Summit, and on Burlington from Summit to Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 6 Muscatine. He said that is the neighborhood this concerns, and one shouldn't focus just on a little block, because the City has defined this neighborhood as that area. Brennan said the neighborhood is sprinkled with very large buildings, as shown in the photographs provided by McCafferty. Brennan said that the proposed building exceeds side setback requirements, has a sloped roof, and the fa<;:ade is certainly no greater than that of the buildings the Commission was shown photographs of, and they are fairly liberally sprinkled around the entire neighborhood. Carlson stated that he agrees with Ponto in that he has to view the depth as part of the mass of the building. He said he likes the fact that this was scaled back quite a bit from the original proposal, but it still is much bigger than what was there before, and what was there before was already bigger than most things in this neighborhood. Carlson said that at this point, he did not think he could vote for approval of this plan. Michaud said she lives on College Green Park and is sensitive to the neighborhood concerns. She said that if this was being built next to her property, she would be ambivalent, because the owner is making an attempt to do landscaping and ameliorative things. Michaud said she would not have any problem agreeing to the height and width of this if it were for two-bedroom units with the same original footprint. Carlson said that the fa<;:ade is bigger than what was there but is within reason. He said the Commission shouldn't be taking landscaping into consideration when considering the mass of the building, because it is not known whether the landscaping will always be there. Carlson said the issue is really what one can see based on the buildings around this right now, and it will clearly be a very deep building from the street. He said that if there was some way of reducing setting back the back of the building in some way - making it shorter or pulling it in - that could reduce the scale enough to make it within the guidelines in his opinion. Carlson said that as it is now, he does not think it is within the guidelines. Weitzel said that this is a tough case, because it concerns landowner rights as well as the rights of the neighbors. He asked what historic preservation is if it isn't taking into account what something does to the community. Weitzel said the Commission can't always make everybody happy. He said he did not remember ever having this much opposition to a project in recent times from the neighborhood, so he would have to vote against this. The motion failed on a vote of 1-6. with Brennan votina in favor. Weitzel suggested the applicant work on another design or consider the appeal process, which determines whether the Commission has been arbitrary or capricious in its decision. 805 East WashinQton. MOTION: Ponto moved to take consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for 805 East Washington Street up from the table. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Terdalkar stated that this item was deferred at the last meeting, because the applicant could not attend the meeting. Terdalkar said he suggested that the design of the new garage should be somewhat compatible with what was demolished. He showed sketches that he had discussed with the applicant. Terdalkar said the applicant was going to determine the cost of the brick needed for the project. Terdalkar said he suggested that if there is not enough original brick salvaged from the original structure, the owner can probably use face brick to match the portions of the brick, and use stucco as it was on the original structure. Terdalkar said he also asked the owner if he could install a window on the south fa<;:ade to match the original. Terdalkar said if that is a concern, with regard to a nearby parking lot, the owner could build a recess in the stucco, which would give a break in the mass on the side and give the impression of a window. Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 7 Terdalkar said that instead of the addition that was done to accommodate a larger car, he suggested just installing the roofline on the front of the building, which will somewhat replicate the front elevation, which will be similar to this. Joseph Codr, the owner of the building, said that he likes Terdalkar's proposal. Codr said that Terdalkar gave him six to eight ideas, and he thought they were all right on. Codr said he wants this to look as much like the original as possible. He said he has no problems with anything proposed by Terdalkar. Michaud asked about the depth of the gable part. Terdalkar said that the eaves on the house are very deep. He said it could be about the same depth as the eaves on the house, about one foot or so. Terdalkar said the garage will be 18 feet, to accommodate a modern car. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 805 East Washington Street in accordance with the drawings provided at this night's meetings. Baker seconded the motion. Terdalkar said the wall will be constructed with concrete block, which will not make it easy to build the step down from one end to another. He said it will have a shed roof, as it did before, which will drain toward the east side. Weitzel said the building was demolished as a safety issue, because the north wall was pretty much gone after the tornado. Codr said he has to use block, because the north wall is against the steps of the house, and everything would just rot out if he used wood. He said he is going up six feet with block, which will be stuccoed and then six-inch timber from that point up to the ten feet that it was before. Terdalkar said he had suggestions for the garage doors. He suggested a very simple garage door fayade. Terdalkar said that if the owner chooses to have windows on the garage door, he could use a similar divided light pattern as that on the house. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto moved to amend the main motion to include details to be worked out between the owner and staff. Baker seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 934 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said that this application is for another storm-damaged structure. He showed a photograph of the building from 2003, before the house had vinyl siding on it. Terdalkar said that the porch was destroyed in the tornado, and the roof was completely destroyed. He said the chimney was also destroyed, and this proposal is to rebuild the roof and the porch as they were, but without the chimney, so this proposal is for the demolition of the chimney. Weitzel said that the focus of this is whether or not this particular chimney needs to be rebuilt. Mike Waltz, the owner of the house, said the reason he does not want to reconstruct the chimney is because the brick is gone, and also, the chimney is down to about the level of the second floor. He said he is taking out the boiler from the basement and putting new heating and air conditioning units in the building. Waltz said he would bring the stack up through the chimney and go up to the roof with the ventilation. He said he would run PVC up through the chimney and bring out electrical to the second floor. Michaud asked if a structure is needed around those things. Waltz said it would be like on a modern house, which might have a stack without a chimney. Brennan asked how the Commission could compel rebuilding of the chimney. Terdalkar said that a demolition permit would be required to demolish the chimney. Waltz said that the storm demolished the chimney. Terdalkar said that if something was accidentally demolished, the Commission can mandate rebuilding. He said the Commission can give approval to modify something or rebuild it as it was. ___,__">'~"_M''''''_'"''_'_'___'_'''~~'____'_~~._'__''~_>_m~~"_"'_' Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 8 Michaud asked what the problem would be with rebuilding this. Weitzel said he thought the owner is arguing that it is superfluous and would have to be built from the top of the first story up through the whole thing. He said that masonry work is very expensive, and the owner would either have to construct some kind of false chimney at the top or build it from the stable part of the chimney. Michaud said that the garage issue just considered centered around what was a bastardization of a 1920s garage, but the Commission made him replicate that compromise of the 1920s garage. She said that this is at least coherent with the building. Michaud said she could see not rebuilding the whole chimney but thought there would be something the owner could put it there. Weitzel said that in the past, when the owner was willing to do so, the Commission has approved false chimneys to be built. He said the Commission has also allowed a similar type of chimney to be demolished before. Carlson said he did not know if how the chimney was lost should enter into the deliberations, but his personal opinion is that if a tornado knocked down a chimney, he is more willing to let it go than if an owner wanted to take down a chimney. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a demolition permit for the chimney at 934 Iowa Avenue. Baker seconded the motion. Terdalkar asked if the Commission is letting the chimney go just because it is smaller. He said he did not feel that should be the way, because it would not be consistent. Weitzel said the real question is whether the Commission feels this is an architecturally significant feature. Weitzel said that one way to look at this project is that the building is being rebuilt instead of being demolished. He said that one could look at the tradeoff of having a chimney versus the fact that now it would be gone. Michaud asked if a simulated brick chimney is affordable. Waltz said that he was not sure if putting the chimney back up on there would support that weight. Toomey asked how high the chimney originally was above the roofline. Waltz said that the roof had a 4:12 pitch, so there was probably at least three feet of chimney above the roof. Toomey said that with some simple wood framing underneath, with a chase, one could still frame that in and build the chimney right on top of it if it is only three feet. He said that if the Commission members believe the view of that chimney is an architectural feature, it could be built up without building it all the way up from anything other than what is above roofline. Toomey said that one could build a straight roof on that, with a hole coming through for the vent, and build a framing underneath it to support the additional weight of the brick chimney that is put up there. Waltz asked if one would basically just put a fake chimney up on top of the roof, and Toomey confirmed this. The person with Waltz said that would not necessarily be historic. Toomey said that it would provide the architectural footprint that the eye sees with the building. He said the chimney was a functional aspect of the building, although there are architecturally significant chimneys. Toomey said that it would be a stretch to call this an architecturally significant chimney. Waltz agreed that this is just a plain, old chimney. Weitzel asked if the chimney brick matched the foundation on the porch. Waltz said he did not believe so, but he has only owned the house about a week. Terdalkar suggested that a fake frame chimney would cost almost the same as it would to use real brick. Weitzel asked Helen Burford if there was 1920s tapestry brick at the salvage barn. Burford said there was not but suggested a couple of other places where brick could be obtained. Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 9 Weitzel asked if the insurance settlement on this building was transferred to Waltz, and Waltz responded that it was not. Waltz stated that the Building Department is waiting for Commission approval on this so that he can put a roof on the house. He said that the whole attic is gone. Weitzel stated that he is a strong proponent of keeping chimneys when they are there, as they are not that hard to maintain and are one of the single features that best define some rooflines. He said that practically, he is so glad that this house is being rebuilt that he is willing to make concessions on this. With regard to the garage considered previously, Terdalkar said that the garage was built later than the house and was an addition to the property. He said that it was done tastefully, as opposed to some garages modified for larger cars by adding a snout coming from the back. Terdalkar said this garage was done properly to make it compatible to the house and has perhaps gained enough significance on its own. Carlson said that it looked like the brick on the chimney did not match the foundation and was just plain red brick, from what he could tell. Ponto agreed that it was just a functional chimney and was not a decorative chimney. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Waltz referred to where the front pillar on the left side is totally gone and said he did not think there was enough brick to put it back up. He added that on the far wall, there is a big hole where there is no brick on the side. Waltz said that if he cannot find the brick, he might propose to take down the pillar on the right-hand side, use the brick on the other side, and put round white pillars on both sides. He asked if that would be acceptable to the Commission. Weitzel said he believes the porch was built with the house, and Waltz agreed. Weitzel questioned whether the square columns should be replaced with round columns. Waltz said that they would not have to be round columns. Weitzel suggested that square, tapered columns would be more appropriate. Waltz said that if he can find replacement brick, he will put it back up. Terdalkar suggested filling in on the side with new brick or a similar type of brick. He said that by going with the tapered columns, it will make this more like a craftsman-style house, although the front appearance is not that stylistic. Carlson suggested the Commission doesn't yet have enough information to make a decision on the porch pillars. Waltz said that if he can find the appropriate brick, he will put it back. Waltz asked what the owner of the house next door would be doing with that house. Terdalkar said the Commission issued a certificate of no material effect for the roof to stabilize it, but he did not know more beyond that. Weitzel said the Commission's approval allows the chimney to be demolished. Regarding the front porch pillars, he said that they could be addressed with a certificate of no material effect if the owner can match the brick and, if not, the owner can submit a proposal for the Commission's review. 1141 ColleQe Street. Terdalkar said that this property is a contributing structure in the East College Historic District. He said the project is to reconstruct the exterior stairway, which provides primary access to the second unit in the building. Terdalkar referred to a sketch provided by the applicant and said it appears that the new stairway would be longer than the existing stairway. He said it may therefore have to be extended further form the southern most point that is there now on the site, which will probably run into the required setback but is not allowed by the zoning code. Terdalkar said the applicant therefore needs to revise the proposed Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 10 stairway such that it meets the code requirements. He said he has discussed this with the applicant, who planned to provide measurements of the site/property boundaries and the stairwell. Michaud asked if there is a way to go toward the back bay and then forward, by putting a landing in there. Terdalkar said that the window on that side may cause some problems with installing a dogleg-style stairway. He said that this is also the only access point here so that it is stationary and cannot be moved drastically. Toomey asked if there is not a stairway inside the building, and Terdalkar said there was no stairway inside, as far as he knew. Terdalkar said that this would not be allowed today for a few reasons. He said that a duplex can now be only on a corner lot. Terdalkar said that primary access to a unit cannot currently be through an exterior stairway. He said that this building was grandfathered in so that the City cannot make the owner remove the duplex unit, but there needs to be a solution to this. Terdalkar added that the fire escape unit has to stay to provide egress. Weitzel said the Commission does not even know if this proposal would be allowed, so the Commission may want to defer a vote on this. Terdalkar agreed that there are items for the owner to consider. Weitzel said this application is not complete enough for the Commission to consider. Terdalkar said the stairway can be repaired, but what will happen is that every year there will be another part that needs stability and repair. He said that the stairs really need complete reconstruction. Terdalkar said the Building Department asked the owner to repair the stairway, possibly subsequent to a rental inspection. MOTION: Ponto moved to table consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1141 College Street due to lack of adequate information. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chair. Weitzel asked for nominations for Commission Chair. Ponto nominated Weitzel for the position of Chair. Toomey seconded the nomination. Ponto said that he feels Weitzel has done an excellent job as Chair, especially in light of all of the issues that have arisen as a result of the April tornado. He stated that it has been a lot of work. There were no other nominations for the position of Chair. Weitzel was accepted as Chair by acclamation. Vice Chair. Weitzel asked for nominations for Commission Vice Chair Baker nominated Brennan for the position of Vice Chair. Michaud seconded the nomination. Brennan was accepted as Vice Chair by acclamation. OTHER: Burford said that Old Brick has confirmed space for Wednesday, December 6th, for the historic preservation awards. She stated that Friends of Historic Preservation would like the Commission to consider giving the historic preservation awards in the fall, instead of in the spring, as it gives people more time to complete work within a given year. Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 11 Michaud said that the work generally takes a year no matter what is done. Ponto agreed but said that if the work is completed in the summer, it is still fresh. Terdalkar said there is pressure to finish projects before any given deadline. Terdalkar suggested setting a timeline for a project from January through December, with the awards ceremony to be held in May during historic preservation month. Weitzel suggested that there be a photo montage of the tornado recovery for the awards, including work in progress photographs. Burford said that Margaret would be speaking about the new museum at the ceremony. Weitzel asked about the meeting to be held regarding the grant. Terdalkar said the meeting would need to be held on an evening or a Sunday. He said that the National Trust is requesting an update of what is going on. Weitzel asked about the grant applications. Terdalkar said there have been applications for 819 Iowa Avenue, 821 Iowa Avenue, 934 Iowa Avenue, 103 Governor Street, two houses on College Street, and one house on Jefferson Street. Burford stated that four people have applied for the State grant. Weitzel asked Terdalkar if he has spoken to Kathy Gourley recently. Terdalkar said that he has and that Gourley is considering naming October 9th as the second round deadline. Terdalkar said there will need to be a meeting to discuss which projects will receive funding. Weitzel said there is $10,000 available for the seven projects. Michaud said she feels that need should be a consideration for receiving the money, and Weitzel agreed that need is a prime consideration. Terdalkar said that he would contact Michael Maharry and Mike Haverkamp from Friends of Historic Preservation regarding the meeting. He said that Mike Gunn and Weitzel have also volunteered to attend the meeting. Michaud, Ponto, and Toomey said they would try to attend the meeting, depending on which evening it would be held. Weitzel said the meeting would therefore be tentatively scheduled for next Wednesday or Thursday at 6:00 p.m. Terdalkar said that he would send an e-mail notifying members of the final date and time. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s/pcd/minslhpcl2006/9-28-06.doC = c .... ~ ~ '6 6"0 c - u 8 ~ =~ .S ~ \C ....yc= ==c= i:=M ~"O ~ = ~ ~ loot ~< .... - c .... ~ == go I ~ I I I I ~ I t:! ~ ~ ~ I I I 0 >< C'I I 0 I I I I 0 I Q I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I I I I - >< >< >< 0 I >< -- C'I 0 I I I I I I Q I I I I I I Q ~ ~ I I I I I I I - ~ I >< >< QO 0 0 I I I I I I I Q I I I I I I I I"- ~ I I I I I I I ~ >< >< >< 0 I I I I I I I Q I I I I I I I I'f'l I I I I I I I - >< 0 >< >< -- t"- I I I I I I I Q I I I I I I I N I I I I I ~ I I fa >< >< >< ~ I >< >< >< ~ I I >< I,Q I I I I I I I Q I I I I I I I Irl I ~ I I I I I I ~ t:! >< >< >< >< >< >< -- Irl I I I I I I I I I Q I I I I I I I I I - I ~ I I I I I I I I - >< >< >< -- Irl I 0 I I I I I I I I Q I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I ~ >< >< >< >< Irl I I I I I I I I I Q I I I I I I I I I l"- I 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 I Q 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 Q I I I I I I I I I I,Q I ~ ~ I I I I I - I >< >< >< >< -- I'f'l I 0 I I I I I Q I I I I I I N I ~ ~ I I I I I t:! I >< >< >< >< >< >< ~ >< >< >< ~ I I I 0 >< N I I I I I I Q 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 Q I I I I I I ell 0'1 00 t"- I,Q t- oo I,Q 00 0'1 t- t- 0'1 0'1 0'1 I,Q 00 E ,~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; -- Q) ~ 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! E-<~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ~ .. = e Q) " .. .... 'i Cl. e ~ = :S '0 Q " = .. e ~ Q) t- 'e .. = ~ .. = Q = " <:<l .. " ~ e = '" Q) -= U Q Q) .s e '" .tl Q) ~ Q) i: Q = U -= '0 -= '; '" = " ... ... = Q 'il 'il ~ " .. " -= :a :a ... i .. ... ~ Q =:l c.? " Q IJ) ~ ~ =:l U f;I;j :a ~ ~ IJ) Eo- Z ...s ~ ~ ...; ~ ~ ~ ...; ~ ...; ...; ~ t.6 ~ ...; ~ '1:l Q) .. ell Q) ;:l ~"..c u-..s ~.s Q) "+:l~~ d d ~ ~ (Ij ~~$oo e..c<zz c...< II II II ~ II II ~~ :::<::xooz