The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-21-2006 Historic Preservation Commission Tuesday, November .. 6:00 -- ---- -- . -- ---- 1,-:- --11 !I~I. I ' I ; L_j-~ J "'; 1ln4 'itltW Iowa City City Hall ~!Il' Emma J Harvat Hall . -- IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, November 21, 2006 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J Harvat Hall 6:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda 3. Items of Consideration A. Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. 830 College Street 2. 428 Clark Street 3. 112 S. Summit Street 4. 946 Iowa Avenue B. Minutes for October 12, 2006 meeting 4. Other 5. Adjourn Applicat:ion for Historic Review ApplladOn torakendOl'\S to the exeertIor of hiStoric Iendrnarks or prope... des located In a hl_rlc dlMrIg; Of" c:o","rvadCn dllltrlcc purslJlIn1.to Iowa Clt)' . Code Sec;don '''-''C. Guld.bores lOr tile Hl5tork: It_Jew pt"OCeM. <<lCpIlln.don of dle pro<;_~ AAd re,suladOns can IJ.o rou,..d In the ,_ City Hiri.tork: l"ret;envUon HOJ'/dbook, whiCh lcavallabl. In ch<&PCO cffke at: CItY Hall :or onlll'ull at www. ~.tqIH~ "-thiS lJdI<NIule: 1'M HPC MMtI d'le 5<<:ondThursday of -.ch month. During eM sum,.,.... months, tM HPC may &1$0 mMC. on elM fourth Thursday. ApphaidCM a.'" c/I.te In the. PeO OffIce by noon 01'1 Mont:lay th__1e pnor 1:0 the meed"t. AppUcant; Information (Pfea5e c:hec:k primary ClQInl:af;t per$Qn) t/ . \........ D ~'?f.'~ f'..... .4- f".~y . '-" ". ,e" aI" Owner ~,,,......'!-.f.!1'.\..~...n...................:~...~....l.l. . ~. ...~..l. S l.. '2 otl 'U') d /'''11 'J< pt,one~._._. _'rt!_.~..!..,;~....t......!.;.~~~. .!_........b.~.~'.... ..~........,...........-."'..... ~_....u...... Add. ..... J..2.:5.............13..1".~:f~~.,.r::....c;f.......nG..."....... ..~,.. \ i:? ..r . . L, ..,-. ^ .. ");:i? (:"" <? .....,~......~.:J.l..,u~.).,(::..l:J..~..._..~LJ._......5....,(1..dt..~..~;;... .._.11 c.4Ol..\I~'.r:> l)~ D'f"",q:! Dh Ie ~ 1') e f' . (I.f'! W) Application ReqQ'l"'ements A<<:ached .... dM bUQWl..... Items: o Si te plan o floor plan5 o Building e'.....don$ If PhocoCraphs o P.-odUC't InIormatlon o Other _.. .."'_' ....._..... ......._................... ..................... ,... .... If d'lo proposed project entali"lIn addition. a n....,. scruccuro or . s~",lflc:an~ a1teradon to an. t>>dstlq $tr'UC;t\lr..~ lu~lt a site plan, floor plans. bultd'lng eleYadOns. ..nd phOtognlpM. If die proposed pl"Oj'l!Ct: is . minor alte:l'1ldon to III su...eturc.. pl.._ pro"l. d~.. and photo.,-apm to .~ci.ndy <I.- &<:ribo the ScopcIlO' the proJeCt. Provide a wrlniln d_crlpdon of the propO$ed protect on me liQC;ood pace of dmi appllc:.adon. Fot- SrD/(Use:: Date subrnla:ed .,...........,..........................,.............. o Certlflc-aw of No Material EffllC'C o Cerdfk:ace of Approprllll~ OMlIjorrevtew C Int..-rnec:liace ...-..iew o Minor nwlew Property 'nfOrmadon, ."'. .... C." ........ _~ -1 ____ 0-;1:.1"', r.l'.....e.e"l#e.'Lr.r .>::r.':' """""r.......... "" pf1D,..._. ., ...._.....Q.n~..'::r:-.....__.,,~iO"I'_*........_~~~t~.T~...."_H....;.".........~. iiI...H...."'............ "'.............lW>....--......;t:::...""'"...1 It>....._..,........''''....... ......'~......_.o-......................__..,................. ~,,... ~. { _.1 e .".."t.' ~ L Use 01 Pl"Qperty..........~,;;;J...M,;\,.t.l..J..I.""h. .......n....................... Pace c:onscrt.ICted (If Io'Iown)..................................hh............................. HI.~ric: Des'patlon o Thl$ prOipoliM'ty iis .. loealhiltorlc; IIlI<'ldmarl< OR o This pn:.l!P9I"ty 1$locawd in the: o Brown Street Ht..;tork DIst.rlct tJ CQllep Gr-eenHlnor1c Omrlc:t J( &$st Col'lep; Su.et Hlltorfc District CI longfel11ow Hlstork:Olsaict o Summlt.~ Historic [)'IIIt:rict o WOodlawn Hlscortc Dlsmct o (:.jark S_ Cons......ation OIsIlr'ICC o COI.... HIli ConMrvacion DIstrict o Dearborn Street Comer'vatian District C 1..ucu-Gowrnar St...et eo......rvation Oh.tritE Wlthilndle dllltrli:T. this property is dasslfted as.:. o ContrlbutinC o NoncootribUtlng o NonhlnOr1c: Project: 'l'ype lit AJtonttlon 0' an ~1I:t1llB building (I"/ildl"" and W'lMOW repQOIInlIiIOt. 1Ii~l&hu. window opwllna alter-auom. new dlec:ka. porch recoNt:rucc:tOn. b...un.... r.pair or simllv) C Addldon to anplsdna bulldlnc (lnd~d_ dGCks and ramps) o Demolldon of a b.....dlng or p-ol"don of a building (Ie. p-ordl. c:hlml'\lllVs. decorative trim. (,allJlK:er 0" similar) C eon.truc:tlOtl 01 nIlW bulldirc C Repair or refo:coradcm 01 an exl5dn8 litn.I<::wre that will not . c:hanp In i&ppeal'l1loce C Other ._......._........ ....., .............. ........... "............................ ............ ........ - '.' I :hf'ltlt [)11 0 {fJ 1<1 ha- 3/q.. 35'': .. 6:1.17 Project description ::::::::g;a;u.,~~~:::::::::::::~~~:::::::::::::&;;;~~~:::::::;:;;~"2;;::::::::::~:~:~:;;;2:::::::~:t:::::::::::~~:::::~:::~:::::::::: ...........,LlI8.CtiJ......IiAl..a........~........t;i.<:........w~.!t1.:.........~../I....................t:t.::~............~...f:?...........~..t.:::'tt!.~..... ...........~~A.f1I~............(.!ir.,I.I..f.c:......O.........................................................................................................................................H............... ............................."...................................-....................."'.....................................-.........,..."............................................1........................................."""......_............._........ .~ , . I. "", .....................................I...~..I.I.............................................1........................................................................................................................................................._....... ............"........,.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................1..............................................................................................................................................._ .......................................................................................................................................................,.............................................................................................-.... ......................................................................................11......"........................................................................................................................................._......._............. .............. .... ................. ... .......... .....,.... .41..................... ............................................... ................. .................................................................... .....................................................................................41................................................................................................................................ ........................,...............................................,...............................................................................................................414141.............._......... Materials to be used .....................................,................................................................................................-..........,............................................................................................................. ........~.........Ut.l.ir~.~~.................._.............................................................................................................................................................................. ........~......~.......;i'h~........w:tIIL..tcJl.....kA.l.1.............................................................................................................................. ..................................................,............................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..........................................................................................................................,.............................................................................................................................-... ...........................................................,.................................................................................................................................................................................................. ....................................,.......,...............................'.....4141............................".".................................,.......................................................... ............. ........................ .,.................. ................. ...... ...... .............. ......... ......... ...........................................,......41....................................41.... Exterior ."e......c. man... :::::rA~:::::::::::~~~~::::::::::;7~:::::::::::i;.:::::::~~:;:::::::::~:::::::::;;.~~:~:::::~~::;:2:::~:~=:=::: ....,(it.:......*...........~h..........If:ttJ........~......~..........~..:....~.I1..............(....s;.;;;.t.J,(,"ll:.......cl.J........................... .........41....................... ... .............. ....................... ......................... ............... ... ..... .... ..... ................................................................................. ........,.................. ..................... "' ................................... ...... ..,. .............................. ......................41............................................... ............. ...............................................................................................................41..................................,................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................41......................................................................................................................................................._.. .......41...............................................,.................................................................................................................,..,................................ ........ ... ......,.., .............. ... ................ . .... ....,. ,... .... .... ... ... ... ......... ...,.... ........ ... ............... ........ ....... ... ... ...... ...... ...... ....... .... '.6 ..... ......... ._. ..... .... ..................."..."......................................"................................................................."'.....41.41........................,......................................... ppdadmll'1' HanclboClll/Afp,p6$ , d 9LBv900689 'ONI L ~: 8 ~ 'lS/8 ~: 8 ~ 900, AON (03M) H3NI3l 8d ~OHd II I Q) >< ..c +-' ,+-CX) o ~ N "'C II Cs Q)",-", :E 3: en ~ 0 3: o "'C 0 Zc"'C .- C Q) 3: .- :E en 3: +-' en c CO Q) Q) "'C ~ Q) Q) C> ~ +-,Q)+::; CO C Q) uCO.c o ..c ..c+-, ~i:o "'C Q) 3: .c u Q) 3: CO E 0.. CO Q) en ~ o Q) +-,..c +-' en ._ C .- C CO CO+-' _ C en 0..'- ._ CO en Q) E ._ ..c ..cl-O I- +-' .~ co+-' Q)S= ~+-'S ::J en c> Q) . iLS;:;; 'I ~' -~---- ~ ~~ ~ en c 0 en c Q) E .- "'0 .c -+-oJ ~ . en c ~ 0') .- 0 en "'0 Q) C "'0 ~ - - Q) 0') ~ C :J ~ .c 0 Q) "'0 .c c :J ~ 0 "'0 "'0 Q) 0 "'0 ~ c I- Q) -+-oJ C . en Q) ~ .c 0 -+-oJ "'0 en c ~ ~ 0 .c co en 0(") Q) Q) ~ c.:J E .0') cou. >< w . L!) N >< ~ Q) ~ ~ co :J ~ O')N .- '+- U. 0 1---- --- .- - - - - ... ~-~ "0 s.... C o CO CO Q) . +-' > CO Q) 0 Q) E .0 0. s.... CO 0. Q) C CO ..c:>- +-' :> CO .- 0 :::J Q) ..c en 0> en .- c > ._ en Q) enco..c :::J - +-' Q) Q) Q) "0 > t) CO Q) C E "0 CO Q)c-E .0 ~ Q) - s.... 0 .- 0> +-' ~~"O = 0 Q) Q) - en ~ ~ :::J Q) +-' Q) ..cen.o I- .~ = . Q) ~ C .0 s.... .0> = Q) en .- .0 Q) ~ E O=:+::i -Q)s.... Q) ~ 0 S~TI ~ I- 0 o .0 -gcriO> ._ s.... C S .a .0. t) CO :::J t) C"')l:;en Q)en"O s.... t) C :::J ._ CO 0> +-' - ._ en u. CO 0. Staff Report November 21, 2006 Historic Review for 830 E. College Street District: College Green Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Kim and David Poppen, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 830 East College Street, which is a contributing property in the College Green Historic District. The applicant intends to remove a pair of existing basement windows; enlarge the openings (by increasing the height); install with a pair of egress-sized windows, and construct a window well to create additional habitable space in the basement. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Foundation 4.2 Masonry 4.7 Windows Staff Comments The house was built in c. 1930 with the influence of the English Cottage style. Over the years the house has been altered including the installation of a large slider door and a paired egress window. The applicant is now proposing to replace an exiting pair of basement windows with a pair of egress size windows with a window well. The applicants indicate that the proposed windows would be vinyl windows, but has not indicated the type of the proposed windows. As the guidelines disallow the use of vinyl or vinyl-clad windows, staff recommends that wood or metal clad-wood, double-hung or simulated double-hung windows should be used. The appearance, size, proportions and sash profile of the proposed windows should to match the original windows on the house. Staff further recommends that the jamb between the two windows should be as wide as the jambs on the existing original windows and the window well should have the appearance of a masonry or concrete window well finished with smooth-finish plaster. r~ . .':It~. .\'1" J 'i~.t ~'j '1~ ',J;( J , I ',(" l ~- Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months. the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting. ~~t~t~b~~ed .....lP.~.$l~..()..Y?............ D Certificate of No Material Effect IX! C~cate of Appropriateness va Major review D Intermediate review D Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) DOwner ..........lenn}'.Anger..&.Mike.Moriacty............. Phone ...............3..J..8.::7.J.Q3........................................................... Address ..........4.~.~.(J.~r.~..S.tx~.~L........................................ .........................J.Q}Y!!.qD:,.JA..~.f.7.:4Q................................. email................................................................................................ D Contractor ..Mit~b.~U.P..Qj.pp.~............................................ Phone................~~J.7.Q~;;?J.......................................................... Address .........}~J..KiX~~QQ.g.Ay.~..................................... ........................)Q~~..g.~n:,.I~...?.7.~~.Q................................. email................................................................................................ IX! Consultant .:>.h~n~y...MS?~!!ff.~m:..................................... . Phone..............:?~J::4.9.4.7............................................................ Address .........~7..~..~.:..~.~.~~*.~~r.~~~.t!.Q~...................... ........................}~.~~..q.o/~}A...??7..~.Q.................................. . shellmac@att.net emad................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: IZQ Site plan W Floor plans 31 Building elevations D Photographs D Product information D Other.............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition. a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure. please submit a site plan. floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure. please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiendy 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 ..:4f.~..CJ!!I~..S.~r.~~.L..................................... Use of property ..........S.h}gJ.~..f..~mHy.R~.~jg~n~~..................... Date constructed (if known) ............................................................... Historic Designation D This property is a local historic landmark OR 31 This property is located in the: D Brown Street Historic District D College Green Historic District D East College Street Historic District D Longfellow Historic District D Summit Street Historic District D Woodlawn Historic District ag Clark Street Conservation District D College Hill Conservation District D Dearborn Street Conservation District D Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: IX! Contributing D Noncontributing D Nonhistoric Project Type D Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights. window opening alterations. new decks. porch reconstruction. baluster repair or similar) l>> Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) D Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch. chimneys. decorative trim. baluster or similar) D Construction of new building D Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance D Other .............................................................................................. ...roJect: aescnpt:lon Q.Qn~1r.y~t..~..~~~..~.~~~..~gg.itim:u:m...1b.~.r~.~.Qf.1b~.hg.y.~.~:.....I.b~r.~..~r.~.nQ.JJp.igM~..Qr..~h~r.~.9.t.y.r..9.~.Qp.im~.Qr.igjnR\Lf.y.~k... tYr~.~..QD-..tI}~..r.~ill:.g.fJh~..~?<;j.~tj.D-g..I}QM~~:...A.~m.~J.\.g~J;'!:\,gy..R\g.gjJ~Qn...tI}~..~?<;j.~l~D,g..9.y'gk...ill:'Q.gQQx.~..~g.tbr~.~..w.~P'gQ~~ ~j.U..Q~.x~.mg.y~9.~................................................................................................................................................................................................................ RQ.Qf..f.Qr.m...P..~t~h.~ng.m.~~~~D,g..W.m..m.~t~h.tb.~.~~.~~tip.g.hQ.y~~:....Ih~..~jngg.w.~.~jJ~.Q~..gQM1?.l~::hMD-,g..tQ.m.~t~h.tb.~..... ~p.p.~.~~m~~..Qf..g.r.~gin~.\..w~D-.gQ~~:....wjngQ):Y..@g.gQQx.Jr.j.m....~~.y~~,..~.Q.ffi!~,..f.~M~.,g~Qr.~~.@g..wR\l~x..t~1?.l~..w.illm~1gl1 ~l\~~HD,g.....CQ1Qp.i.~Lr.~y.i.Y.~l.g~1~H.~..~m..1?~.JJ~~g..QnJh~..P.Qr.gh..~g..1?~l9.g.D-y.:.....e.~~~t.~p,g.f.~p.~~..~UL1?~.x~!Q~.~t~g.......Ih~ g~~g~..9.QQr...wH.th~..~..~mQQ1h.fiM~h.gQ.yQJ.~..gQgx:...I.I}~..9.~~k.w.m..9.~.~.Qn~trn~.t~.g..Q.f..w.QQg.@g.p.~ip.t.y.g..Q.r..Q.P.R\q\l~...... ~t~j.D-~9..~n9..~jJLh~.Y.~..!R\ttif.~..~.~.~tl~D,g:............... ..................................... ................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. ........................................................ ................................................................. ............................................................................... .... .......................... ........ ..... ..................... .................................................................................................................................................... ..................................... ....................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Materials to be used A~.LJE.~!~~!~t~.:~y.m..~9.~p.!y...~~th..~~~.N~tg!!.~..P.!~.~.~r.Y.~!.~9.~..g~~9:~gp.~~:................................................................................................... Foundation: Concrete with rock face CMU veneer. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ~!.g~~.8.:..................f.~P.~E.~~~~g!.~.~~p)?~.~~g..~~~h.~9.~.g..~~.g~..~h~p.gJ~.~..~.~.f~~~..g9.EP.}~E~:....~~.P.9.~~~~..~9..~.~t.~h.~.~~~!~!?:K. Trim: Wood, Miratec, or fiber cement. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... R:~.9.f.:.....................-A~p.h.~!~.~h!.~~.~~........... ................... .................. ............................................................................................................... ................. Exterior appearance changes Se.e.drawliiii.i::............ ............................................................................................................... .................................. ...... .................................. ...... ........... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ :-.-.-.-.-.- I .-. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Addition I I I I .-.--' 22'.0' Relocate existing fence L._._._._ Site Plan I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I ._._.--1 en t:3 = 0") Garage addition to be demolished Existing Garage 4'.0" 22'.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 ---t~______________J ~~_____~________~ Garage '_____m_mm ---------------------------------------------- Basement/Foundation Plan I i I I I ! '9 '<:t 9 N N z <::) -< ~ t:5 c:::> ~ .J " "? .,. 4'-0" t 9 r~ Co -' C> I z I C> <: C"l Second Floor plan I l::5 = O~ f .J " &;> .,. Kitchen Laundry r <;> ~ Nook Porch Eo b JU I ~ f..- t--- 13'-0' -+ g'-O" 4'-0" First Floor plan s:: o ~ > ~ W .s:: t o Z c o .~ > oS! w ~ .lJ :l o en c o oi > cu W ; w Staff Report November 21, 2006 Historic Review for 428 Clark Street District: Clark Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Jennifer Anger and Mike Moriarty, are requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 428 Clark Street, which is a contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District. The applicants intend to construct a three-story addition measuring approximately 22 feet x 26 feet, a wooden deck measuring approximately 13 feet x 10.5 feet, a recessed porch connected to the deck by a 3 feet 6 inches wide walkway, a balcony and a stairway. The addition is proposed to be built by replacing an existing wood deck (12 feet x 15 feet) and a small garage addition (3 feet x 12 feet) at the back of the house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations; 5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Addition; 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition; 8.0 Neighborhood District Guidelines; Longfellow Neighborhood - Building Height and Mass Staff Comments The original house on the property appears to have been built in c. 1910. The features such as the classical columns on portico and the faux gambrel roof show the influence of (Dutch) Colonial Revival features. This house can be categorized as a vernacular house with Colonial Revival features. Such colonial-revival-inspired houses were very popular in the early part of the 20th century. A number of similar house plans can be found in popular mail-order catalogues and many similar houses can be seen in the surrounding neighborhood. The house has been altered over the years-a porch (possibly a screened porch or a sun room), seen in the 1933 Sanborn map, has been replaced with a two story addition on the south side. A deck measuring approximately .15 feet x 12 feet has also been added on the east side. The applicants are now proposing a new three-story addition on the east side (back) of the house. The ground floor will be occupied by a two-car garage and two upper stories will be used as habitable rooms-kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, etc. The applicant plans to use reinforced concrete foundation finished with rock-face concrete block veneer, fiber cement board siding, wood cedar shingles (for the faux dormers), wood, wood-composite, or fiber cement board trim. The applicant intends to use a 'smooth flush' door for the proposed garage openings. The applicant has not indicated the material for doors, windows, railings, columns for the porch, balcony and the walkway. The guidelines require that the additions must also comply with Section 8: Neighborhood District Guidelines, which require that the primary structures in Longfellow Neighborhood be one, one-and- a-half, or two-stories in height. Ideally, additions to such a house are built on the sides and are proportionally smaller in size and scale. Sometimes the additions such as a screened porch or a deck can also be seen on the back of the house. In this case the relationship of the house to the side lot lines prevents additions to the side. Page 1 of 2 Staff has some concerns that the proposed addition would be a large addition when compared to the original house in terms of size and scale (existing'house - approximately 39 feet in length, 22 feet in width and 22 feet in height; proposed addition - a rear wing with at least 22 feet in length, 22 feet in width [excluding the balcony, the porch, the deck and the connecting walkway] and approximately 28 feet in height). In staff's opinion, it would be preferable to build a more compatible compact addition, which would more efficiently satisfy the necessary space needs. Staff recognizes that the applicant has tried to incorporate certain measures, recommended by the guidelines, in the design of the new addition. The addition is proposed to be set back from the existing wall plane of the house on the north side as well as the south side. The proposed roof prof11e, horizontal lines, and the materials are compatible and match the original (except for certain trim and eave details on the east fa<;ade). The proposed design is thus generally consistent with most of the guidelines. If the commission decides to approve the addition with the proposed size and mass, staff recommends that the proposed balcony and the recessed porch design be revised such the balcony and the porch are centered on the east fa<;ade of the addition. This would resolve the situation where the balcony railing projects beyond the roof line. Alternatively, the balcony can be eliminated and a low-pitched roof can be proposed for the porch. This would also enable the applicant to use the eave details to match the original. The proposed elevations show comer boards on the addition. The boards shown on east fa<;ade are particularly wide-9 inches. As the original house does not have such a trim, it may be appropriate not to use corner boards on the new addition. Page 2 of2 ~,/--(~::\.,-_.') \\ \" ~, <~ ~, \'~,c/", ' / \\ "-';! . ~-,--" , Appl ication~HiStoriQ\Review , ~ ,,<,,) Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or ~r~per- ties located in a historic district or conservation district p\:\~nt to Iowa 9ty Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review p~ocess, expl~on of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City H!~PFiCfr"eserva~.-' Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City 1-:\:aU.of online a~. icgov.orgIHPhandbook. \ ~ Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Tliursda}"~ach month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet bn the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) lJ Owner ...../)1/K&........S1..I.J.7"+&.d../.t:::/.6./........... Phone............./........3.I..~......J..c3....?.....3..g..'t...7..... Address ......1..J..6.........s.d~.th.....$..'?~.~.~'t....?.r.: .... .....t.O.~..c;.........e~.~....,...........I..~................................ email................................................................................................ lJ Contractor .....S.e.!.::f..c:..r.......~.~..l~fY.'U~ Address ....e.J..~..\....~.....73.J...................................... ....M.l.L..AAJ...........I..bL...........SO...~..l.'5................... Phone.../..:....a.l9.........5~1.....e.S...Q.~................. email................................................................................................ D Consultant ................................................................................. Address ........ ............. ............. .............................................. ... ....... Phone............ ......... .............................. .................... ....................... email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: D Site plan D Floor plans lJ Building elevations ji( Photographs Jil Product information 1\ D Other.....$.c.o.,e~.....Qf.....e~rQ~.O..~A::: 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. For Staff Use: II /'2':Dat . submitted ......1I.. .../... ..tJ.f+J......................... Certificate of No Material Effect ~~cate of Appropriateness \,~ Major review D Intermediate review D Minor review Property Information 0') Address of property.....I.I..i!.........~;;:...;;a...r.r.:l.t:Y.!A.?t:.... +, ~~~..~~..~;~~~.~~~:::::::::g;,~:::~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::::::::::::::::::::::: Date constructed (if known)...........I..&.~..~..::i.7?/.a........... istoric Designation D This property is a local historic landmark OR D This property is located in the: D Brown Street Historic District D College Green Historic District D East College Street Historic District D Longfellow Historic District D Summit Street Historic District D Woodlawn Historic District D Clark Street Conservation District ~ College Hill Conservation District D Dearborn Street Conservation District D Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: D Contributing D Noncontributing D Nonhistoric Project Type ,r Alteration of an existing building (i~nd window replacement, skylights, window ope~rations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) D Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) D Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) D Construction of new building jiL. Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not . change its appearance D Other .............................................................................................. Project description :::::::::(:::::::R~~~::::~::~;';~~::::::&:~::::::;U:f:~i;'::~::::~r.;:c;.r:::::::: ..........~.h....eu..C..~:.>....:'.l.h.....~......~.!:':f...s..~..........tj.t..~.n.:t:........i::I..~..c:.........d~..A(!..(;,;;;}............ .............().~........*~k......t:.\:.!..'l\~........fi.~fi/d......../..~:f.'.y./.t;',/I...~......................................................................... ..........3........::Pu..r.~r:..:..~..j,.h........4,.....:....a~..~...~.~...........~e.w.............a..J.~...~J...~..~..::~..................................................... .................d.~I..7j......::4:.s..~...\.~...~.............~.aJf?..:t..........~~.......w.I..~d..(l..~.......~...eg.q,.c:........ ...............::t...~..L.~.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... , . :::::::lJQ.;::::::::::::~~:::::::~~:::;;:.:::::~~:;;;::::::~::~::~~::::::::::~:~:y:;:~::0E: ........W.".~..........~..U.~.~......\.............I........,.............~....f':I...9;.......~.G'.~.............w..(...{..r...................................... ...............~...u.~........................................................................................................................................................................................................ '\ Materials to be used ..............AJ.c..a.,:;.............~J"'.M..........d.c:.......CZL.................................................................................................................................... ..............Ce.~.f:..+.....~.4-..~.:~.........c/~......l!..l~....'::.d....................................................................................................................... ..............~.~.~~~..........t...~..:S::.fl.I.~..,.t:-I...~......................................................................................................................................... Exterior appearance changes ~ ~ ..........................mmmmmmm.............................c..\,4\t~.m...mm............rllO.k.i.!..........t:\...,,~..........I11&.Ifh~..mmmJ.?... b-.a .........~~~............~........~I/;...r..L.a1.............../.-t..&-..................................................................................-z;e,r~ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ppdadm/HP HandbooklApp.p65 x - L-. 11'--. .-A--' ~ vJ I r\I Do uJ~ S.:l.t}u1 ~ - Door / / 2 ~(){/Tij c5tJ/fJ/J1/T STPEC/ J7j;Jc... e 1-?7t ) JA- :5 -2..L L.} D jY)Jj(? $,)fAfLJiUtJfti /I~ .,30 r t ;3 13 fere"^- + \~ +- , ~ ->. -'> +- ~ I --;. 4::- -.> I l 13 -:t jYlllC[ c!3;1A"v ;tJ oN I ~ ?-" c5 b v T \"""J .;5 V tv.. VV\ I 'T 5~ , tC5V 0.. C\. +'\ t (1) W"- 1f L0C> kl....~ '.fo~ ~~lc:LI\JG, ~y-ou~\ ~ P 1'0 r V.,$R cO woRK l. T~ c, r erft 6tJ-H r S 1'0 I I'Ve. MCtTZ' (2..\A:L -( .f A K ~ 6 {c, ( l< ) ~. tu r'N "5 k. J I tJslALl \ \l-'t 'I f~'Iv+() 1& 1 N ..sLd~tJ :3 . Re (?k; r ro r\ e r--J Wo C) c:\ Lf, f'u rlUl~ ~ ~ lNSTALL Ce~" -r- -P, ~r- C Lc. \r -b 0 Cl rc9 s (dj \ VI ..,-- """ /2- )" \ 5crrrJr ~ + c; s c,~ . I l. t<e \~;r a~l\ ro +\ ~ ~ lJ-..j c)(~ B ;). -NrN;S~ ~ l ~ s kll aJo "'I ~u ( ~ o-fl,-r ~ f7 ~ $, C l ~ l 1'.1 tJ ~ ~ -\-Q ALU /11\. Wi NboW ~ Door TR.IM l, fAJrc r -tV' I'~ , . It-1I4 W ).., l i-f oJ LJ IV\. " c.o If. " '~; \ '(~ "'~j~ \ '\\.~ ~.:\.~.' ~ ...~~ ,~ '" ,\ ) Staff Report November 21, 2006 Historic Review for 112 S. Summit Street District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Mike Shannon, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 112 South Summit Street, which is a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. The applicant intends to 1) remove the existing 'Insulbrick' (imitative brick asphalt siding) and install new fiber cement board siding; 2) replace the existing soffits, fascia; and 3) wrap the existing door and window casing/trim with aluminum. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Wood 4.5 Siding Staff Comments The original house was built in c.1898. This is a true eclectic vernacular cottage and perhaps can also be categorized as a Queen Anne cottage. The house has a complex roof line with a central pyramid and multiple gables. The Site Inventory Form indicates a possible connection between this house and the house at 1016 E. College Street, which was built by architect F. X. Freyder (builder of the Summit Street Apartments). Both houses were built in the late 1890s and have a similar roofline- multi-gable, pyramidal roof with deep eaves and a flare. The guidelines recommend: Repairing historic wood siding and trim Replacing deteriorated sections of wood siding with new or salvaged wood siding that matches the historic wood siding Removing synthetic siding and repairing historic wood siding and trim Staff agrees that the clapboard siding appearance would be more appropriate for this house and removing the existing Insulbrick would be an improvement. However, based on other similar situations where wood siding has been covered with synthetic siding, staff believes that the option of repairing and maintaining the wood siding behind the Insulbrick siding may be feasible and cost effective, and should be explored. As the guidelines recommend, if certain portions of the wood siding is deteriorated it should be replaced with new or salvaged wood siding to match the original siding. While the approved substitute siding material is acceptable, complete replacement should be considered only when it is determined that the existing wood siding can not be repaired. If the applicant demonstrates that most the existing wood siding is deteriorated and restoration is not practical, then staff recommends replacement of the siding with fiber cement board. It appears that the applicant is intending to install the fiber cement board siding over the existing wood siding after removing the Insulbrick siding. Staff believes that this is not a practical method, because a level surface is essential for the proper installation. If the new siding is installed over the existing wood siding it will change the profile of the exterior surface and the existing window trim will not extend in front of the siding. Removing the existing wood siding will also give the applicant an opportunity to correct sources of moisture and damage, if any. Therefore, if it is determined that Page 1 of 2 the wood siding damaged and beyond repair, staff recommends removing the wood siding and then install the fiber cement board siding. Regardless of the alternative approved for the siding, staff recommends that lap-width for the new siding should match the original and the original trim should be maintained. The applicant is also proposing to remove the exiting wood soffits and fascia and install new aluminum soffits and fascia. The original wood tongue-and-groove soffits exist on the house except for the front porch, the rear screened porch and the real gable. These soffits appear to have been replaced previously and are plain plywood boards. Staff believes that the damaged portions of the original soffits can be repaired and recommends replacing damaged portions with new soffits to match the original. If replacement is necessary, and it is not feasible to use original tongue-and-groove boards, using plywood products with tongue-and-grove pattern would be an acceptable substitute. The applicant further intends to wrap the exiting door and window casings-wood trim-with extruded aluminum casings. The guidelines disallow covering any historic trim including the door and window trim. Staff recommends repairing and maintaining the existing trim and/ or if necessary replacing it with new trim to match the original. Page 2 of 2 Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at www. icgov.orgIHPhandbook. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) o Owner .....~..f!>..~.m....... Phone...................2s..Y..':]),.~.~...........~......................... Address ..............J?(lf.......~..~..... D email................................................................................................ D Consultant ................................................................................. Address ....... .............. .............. .............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ..... Phone ....... .............. ................. .................... ................................ .... email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: D Site plan D Floor plans D Building elevations D Photographs ~' ~;~~~.~.~~.~~~:~~~................................... 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. , ~~t~t:~b~:ted ......1.I~.:..o..0.................... ':l.,-Certificate of No Material Effect "eI' Certificate of Appropriateness D Major review \d' Intermediate review D Minor review Property Information Address of property ..........q~.b.4~.C?:...~................... Use of property.............~.~~~\.................................................... Date constructed (if known)............................................................... Historic Designation D This property is a local historic landmark OR D This property is located in the: D Brown Street Historic District D College Green Historic District D East College Street Historic District D Longfellow Historic District D Summit Street Historic District D Woodlawn Historic District D ;:Iark Street Conservation District ~ College Hill Conservation District D Dearborn Street Conservation District D Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: \,It/' Contributing D Noncontributing D Nonhistoric Project Type Ii Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) D Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) D Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) D Construction of new building D Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not . change its appearance D Other .............................................................................................. ~:~:~~~:~n~~i:~...1U~.k..~...~.~..........mmm .........................j;-......~..........................................................................................\:..............::...............................................:.;....................mm. ........cf?~.~:;;~r.......\~.:...~..14...~::m..l~7Jl~51.;........m .............................~.~~..................~:..'":.~........W..l.~...h~.........~..........'W.':UJ:,E:.....~...............':n. _ . ..........................~........~......~....................................i.~......~........~......~~........~ .............................:'\'...........................................................:..~........a~.~.................................~..........................~...c:-...J.~.~..~.-;:................... ..........................:;..)..............~.........~.....~.................:.:.:......~............................!/It'c:......~.............Tr.... ()n_ ................................~.....~.:~......~.......\~.......~.('A'.ft~.......~..l....~......~ ................................~......~........~.........~.~....~........~...........~........~.....~~ ....................................~........................................................................................................................................................................................ ::~:~i:I~.:...~:..~~.:.~......t1\,...:.t.1.L.....~....................mmm................................ ...................................................................%..C).~~.....r.\.~~~......................................\:..:..................................................................................... ......................................................................~b:\\:rA......~.....s:h~1.1........t.\).~~~~.................................................................................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::tf.~:~:fd:::::d:M::::::~:~:::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Exterior appearance changes ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65 - Knebel l'Vindows, Inc. CQ Prj #: 3268 Sold To: 67 CASH CONTRACTOR Phone: Delivery Instructions: Shipping Instructions: Item Number: Quantity: Total Jamb To Jamb: Total Rough Opening: /' /' / /- '-, "-. ',,- PO: JOB NAME: LOCATION: Item Number: Quantity: Total Jamb To Jamb: Total Rough Opening: PO: JOB NAME: LOCATION: Page 1 of 2 Knebel Windows Inc. 700 S. Capitol Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 319 338-1712 Fax: 319 338 1 1 28 X 40 1/8 29 X 41 3/8 2 1 32 X 48 1/8 33 X 49 3/8 System #: 0 Dealer Prj #: 3268 Customer 10: ("',<~: ,~ ~\') 'Q.:~" j! Fax: QUOTE: 3268 Order Date: 11/8/2006 QUOTE DETAIL Project Number: 3268 Printed: 11/8/2006 10:37:09 AM Valid Date: 12/8/2006 Ship To: 1 KNEBEL WINDOWS INC. 700 S. CAPITOL STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 Phone: 319338-1712 Drop Ship: Fax: 319338-1904 Weather Shield Mfg. Inc. Proposes to Furnish Products as Stated Below. All Units viewed from Exterior. ~ ~..'.. '~.:J ',J(' " " Weather Shield Casement *New' Rectangle Product Arrangement-1 Wide Sizing Method-Glass Size Glass Size-24 X 36 Glass Width-24 Glass Height-36 Overall Jamb Width-28 Jamb Height-40 1/8 Overall RIO Width-29 RIO Height-41 3/8 (,)perating Code-Left ....\xterior Frame Finish-Aluminum Clad . t Exterior Sash Finish-Aluminum Clad \ Aluminum Paint Finish-Standard Sash Profile-Colonial w '. (~~':l~olor-White ~~,- .t\~.':) :c:~- '"-r y' Weather Shield Casement *New* Rectangle Product Arrangement-1 Wide Sizing Method-Glass Size Glass Size-28 X 44 Glass Width-28 Glass Height-44 Overall Jamb Width-32 Jamb Height-48 1/8 Overall RIO Width-33 RIO Height-49 3/8 Operating Code-Left Exterior Frame Finish-Aluminum Clad Exterior Sash Finish-Aluminum Clad Aluminum Paint Finish-Standard Sash Profile-Colonial Exterior Color-White Glass Type-Insulated Low E Glazing Bead Type-Colonial Gas-Argon Lite Configuration-SOL Bar Width-1-3/8 Colonial SOL GIA Material-Silver Anodized Spacer Number Lites Wide-1 Number Lites High-2 Hinge Type-Egress Hinge Per Unit: Ex!. Price: Unit Price: $326.86 $326.86 Glass Type-Insulated Low E Glazing Bead Type-Colonial Gas-Argon Lite Configuration-SOL Bar Width-1-3/8 Colonial SOL GIA Material-Silver Anodized Spacer Number Lites Wide-1 Number Lites High-2 Sash Locks-Double Per Unit: Ext. Price: Unit Price: $37~.67 . ~371.67 Weather Shield CustornQuote System™ 2.11.0 Copyright 2002 vy,ather Shield Mfg., Inc. ~ \ ~~tJ \),y ~lontractors t;/g/IdIifIP f/I./ TOOt -- "TOOLS FOR THE TRADES" . NEW · CONSIGNED · REPAIR 1423 WATERFRONT DRIVE. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 FAX (319) ~51-3233 · P_~E ~31t3~8-112i' ,800-397-3233 n ( ~~.:.}1W IUSiJf-/J:' ,:.. 'i'J',~}/ ~.( ,<< ,. ~..., t\ ) 'f,,'" , }UJ~ . - -, ~ .."..... ,.~" QI' . ~'" /1\\ l~~ ,. ~ '- ;'j 1Y/ / .... ~'. ~- <:57~" . -'7 ~tD. q\ O. -}.D '" N ,. · f' (\ ) "'/1 r\ 4.. ~ -. J. "--1:' I..... V ~.D '" - V>;; ) '- n 1\ I ~ ~ 4 'Jvs-. ~ 1:i.'1- NN>u ~ ~ '"t,.- ~ ;;) ;).'f..{;, ~-+ ~ ~ ' ,_ ~"l. f~" II. c, \" HY ...-....7'\ .... .Ii, ,I; r".P"fi',)j.)-. j\..\Jtr",- -. 61 ' , .""", V \j , j )/ ),., 0 ~@ , POWER AND PERFORMANCE HEAVY.DUTY TOOLS AND ACCESSORIES FOR THE PROFESSIONAL lB Staff Rep.ort November 21, 2006 Historic Review for 946 Iowa Avenue District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Jim Buxton, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 946 Iowa Avenue, which is a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. The applicant intends to 1) replace an existing dormer window with a larger, egress size casement window, 2) and construct a low-pitched roof for the existing addition. The addition currently has flat roof. The applicant is also requesting approval for a window replacement on the north side. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.4 Mass and Roofline 4.7 Windows Staff Comments The house was built in c. 1900 with American Foursquare style. The house has seen many alterations over the years, including a rear kitchen addition and a small deck. Since the tornado, the Commission has approved many projects on this which involved repair, restoration and several alterations including change in the fenestration (some of the alterations were not directly related to the storm damage). The applicant is now requesting approval for installing an egress size, metal-clad wood casement window in the eastern dormer by replacing an existing double-hung window. The new window will be larger in size and proportion than the existing window. The applicant states that the proposed window will match the recently replaced dormer windows on the south dormer. Staff recommends that proposed casement window should be a simulated double-hung window and should be of the same size as the window in the front dormer. The applicant is also seeking approval for installing a shorter window than the existing bathroom window on the north fas:ade (second floor). The proposed window will be 6 inches shorter. The applicant has not given any reason for the proposed change. The applicant is also seeking approval to replace the existing flat roof for the rear addition with a slightly pitched shed roof (12 inches for an 8-foot span). The applicant proposes to use rolled roofing materials or shingles to finish the roof. ~... a.."..'.......:..',..'l ......"i:"!,~,,_ '~:;~t'", '~'~ jJoi ',. ' ~ ... I t'C ~--- --\ I I""'" ..., ~- ~p ~~1 '.V"j Preliminary MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2006 - 6:00 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Michael Gunn, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Carlson, John McCormally, Pam Michaud STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Timothy Light, Ken Morrison, Dave Poppen, Sarah Richardson, Perry Shawver, Rick Thompson, Steve van der Woude, Mike Waltz, David Wellendorf RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): None MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 14. 2006 AND SEPTEMBER 28. 2006 MEETINGS: Because there were no substantive changes to the minutes, the consensus of the Commission was to file the minutes for both the September 14th and September 28th meetings. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Burford distributed information regarding a lecture by Glenda Castleberry of the Siouxland Development Corporation to be held November 2nd in Meeting Room A at 7 p.m. of the Iowa City Library on economic development in historic preservation. Burford said that the Siouxland Development Corporation is similar to the Johnson County Council of Governments. Burford said that what is remarkable about that area is that people were able to get the region together to support and focus on what would turn the area around, and historic preservation is really at the core of what is making it work. Burford said the Historic Preservation Awards will be presented Wednesday, December 6th, at Old Brick. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Appropriateness: 1141 East Colleae Street. Terdalkar said the applicant has decided to withdraw the application or receive an indefinite deferral for this project, which is to repair an exterior stairway. The consensus of the Commission was to indefinitely defer this item at the homeowner's request. 834 North Johnson. Terdalkar said that this is a key-contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District and is one of the first houses built in Iowa City. He said that the applicant plans to rebuild a front porch that existed when the house was built. Terdalkar said the applicant is also considering building an entryway on the Johnson Street side of the house, because the property now has a Johnson Street address instead of Brown Street. He said the applicant is considering building a portico or smaller porch Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 2 on the west side to mark the entryway. Terdalkar said the applicant is also considering reducing the width of the porch by about three feet, and for that, the column spacing on the west facade would need to be changed. Terdalkar referred to the staff report suggesting that, as much as possible, the applicant should try to maintain the width of the porch. Terdalkar said it appears that the porch is a new addition, as the north elevation shows a slight change in the roof pitch, so this is not part of the original structure. He said that should be considered while reviewing this project, and perhaps there should be some flexibility, because that was not original to the house. Terdalkar stated that originally when the rear wing was added, there were two colonnades/porches on either side of the wing, so one could say that there was a on both sides. He said the colonnade on the east is now just a screened-in porch and the original columns have been removed. Terdalkar said that the west side has been filled-in with brick wall and a small three or four feet wide walkway has been added. The columns on this walkway may not be original. Terdalkar said he suggested that the plans for the west side be revised. He said the suggestion would still stand in terms of the spacing of the columns and the placement of the fenestration, because it would be unusual to have the openings very close to the columns. Van der Woude said that the front porch is a no brainer, because the porch, footings, splash box, and limestone steps are still there. He stated that on the west elevation, where it was remodeled in the 1960s to make the house look like a ranch, he is trying to make it un-ranch like. Van der Woude said the broad overhang is typical of a ranch of this period, but that makes for a very dark interior. Van der Woude said he did some research on the house and found some photographs that show the growth of the house, including an open porch. He said that what Terdalkar is calling a walkway is actually just an overhang now, with columns that are just decorative in that they don't support anything and are not even from this site originally. Van der Woude said he hoped to make this more like a Greek revival house. He said the big change would be the small, six-foot portico. Van der Woude said this house lost its orientation to Brown Street and now fronts on Johnson. He said that this is a very long, linear house. Van der Woude said that the small portico would pick up the details of the other gable ends to help break that up and indicate where the entrance is. Van der Woude said he agrees with Terdalkar's comments about the rhythm of the columns and agrees that the column is too close to the window. Van der Woude referred to a diagram with hash marks showing where the columns are currently and showed where he will put them. Toomey asked Van der Woude if he would be adding one more column, and Van der Woude confirmed this. He said that they are actually just half columns, because they will be applied to the building. Van der Woude said there is a three-foot overhang that he will reduce back to about eight inches. He said that by reducing that, he gains in the height of the roof to get the wide frieze board, which is typical of a Greek revival. Terdalkar showed the overhang and the location of the columns and existing wall. He said the columns will be shifted back, and the location will be changed from horizontal. Van der Woude said he had no problem with making the changes suggested by Terdalkar. Terdalkar stated that one window will be closed to accommodate the porch. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 834 North Johnson. Toomey seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 3 Ponto said he is an adjacent property owner, and he is in favor of this proposal. Swaim said it is terrific to take this house back to closer to what it was originally. Weitzel noted the potential for the original architect to have been John Rague, the architect of the Old Capitol. Weitzel said there is enough left of the building plus the way this project has been designed to make this a really attractive and complementary addition to Iowa City's history. Terdalkar said that the columns are free of the wall. He said that one suggestion would be, while changing the width of the overhang, to leave the columns in front of the existing brick wall, instead of having the columns on the wall. Terdalkar said it would give an appearance that once this was an open porch, and then it was filled in. This would also be helpful in showing the different phases of development of this house. Swaim asked if thatwould still allow for cutting back the overhang. Terdalkar replied that it would. Weitzel said that staff is suggesting, rather than bringing the wall all the way up, removing the standing columns, and putting up half columns, to bring the wall up so that they stand behind those columns - the wall stands and leaves an open architrave back there. Van der Woude said that what he proposes gains him the maximum frieze, which he thinks is more important and is characteristic of a Greek revival house. He said that he is trying to maximum out the nine-inch; the original house had a 14-inch frieze. Terdalkar said he thought the frieze height would be smaller than the one on the front as this is the less prominent facade. Van der Woude said that without raising the whole roof, he can't match that. Terdalkar said that is a much smaller frieze to begin with. Van der Woude said that he would then have to buy more columns, instead of being able to use half columns. He said that a full column would give him more overhang. Terdalkar said his suggestion would give the appearance of a filled-in porch, which would be closer to what was here before. Van der Woude said that he would like to do that, but he would be worried about losing another two inches of his frieze board. Terdalkar said that it is a suggestion to be executed if it is feasible, and the Commission could leave it as an option and not a requirement. Terdalkar pointed out that the elevation the Commission is looking at is not the original elevation and was altered in 1960s and that allows for some flexibility. Ponto said that Terdalkar makes a good point, although Van der Woude has a good counterpoint. Ponto said that there is not a perfect solution; no matter which way this is done there will be some visual compromise. Van der Woude said that the bottom part of the cross of the house had the open porch colonnades to the side, but later it was filled in, and then in 1960 the owners enveloped it and then put on the broad overhang, wi~h a three- or four-foot soffit. Weitzel said that either way one looks at this, it is a restoration and not a question of removing historic columns. Van der Woude said that the columns are old but are not original to that site. Terdalkar said that the columns are fluted and tapered, and Van der Woude added that the new columns would be tapered also. Gunn stated that Terdalkar's suggestion is a good one, but he doubted that it should be required. Gunn said he thought it would be worthwhile to draw Terdalkar's suggestion and present it as an option. Gunn said this is probably a better project with a full column, but he did not think it should go to the point of making it a requirement. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Swaim amended the main motion to include the Commission's recommendation for the columns as presented by staff. Historic Preservation Commission October 12,2006 Page 4 Toomey said he agreed with the recommendation, if the owner can work out the technicalities. Toomey seconded the amendment to the main motion. Weitzel said the motion would approve the application, as submitted, with the option of using staffs drawings and completing the plan that way. The motion, as amended, carried on a vote of 7-0. 903 East Colleqe Street. Terdalkar stated that the applicant is requesting a demolition for an outbuilding at 903 East College Street. Terdalkar said the building is a bomb shelter built in the 1960s. He said that the house at this address is significant, but he was not certain that the bomb shelter/shed is significant, although it is part of the Cold War Era. Terdalkar said the structure was about 17 feet by 17 feet and about eight feet high and showed photographs of the shelter. Weitzel said that this structure would normally require a demolition permit anyway. Light, the owner of the property, apologized to the Commission for beginning the project and said that he started this project in good faith in consideration of the fact that this outbuilding and was less than 50 years old based on conversations with the previous owner and from documentation by the owner who created the bomb shelter. Light said that he wants to keep the house in its regular condition. Light said the original blueprints show that the outbuilding was not part of the original plans for the house. He said that the bomb shelter is made of corrugated, galvanized steel and is filled with sand and pea gravel. Swaim said she was glad Light was photographing this process and encouraged him to take a lot of photographs and a lot of close-up photographs to document the project. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of an outbuilding at 903 East College Street. Swaim seconded the motion. Weitzel pointed out that even though this building is associated with a prominent historic event, the architectural significance of this building was never very high, and its integrity is certainly lacking. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 519 South Summit Street. Terdalkar stated that the Commission reviewed and approved a proposal for this property on April 13tn. He said that application was for a two-story addition, but the new application is for a one-story addition. Terdalkar said the previous application included a proposal to add gable to the existing flat-roofed two story addition, but the new proposal does not propose any changes to this part. He said the proposed addition will extend about 12 feet from the existing face and will have a hip roof. Terdalkar said that the proposal also includes some changes in the interior stairway to access the basement. He said that the applicant needs approximately eight more inches for the landing, but to maximize the inside space, the owner proposes to construct a projection that extends about 18 inches from the existing wall plane, which is about where the existing walkway starts. Terdalkar said that the projection would be on the south fayade, to the east of the existing oriel. He said that the applicant also intends to lower the sill level of the oriel as part of the project. Richardson, the owner of the house, said the reason for these changes is to accommodate her growing family. She said that the issue with moving the stairs is that in order to produce a bigger kitchen, one has to go over the basement stairs inside. Richardson said that where the window comes down from the stairs that go upstairs would be the most logical place for this, and because the code requires users of the stairway to be able to turn the corner, a bump out would be necessary. Historic Preservation Commission October 12,2006 Page 5 Richardson said that inside the bay window there is currently a chest-high window box that cuts into the living space. She said she would also like to change the bay window to make it larger and bring it down so that it can be a window seat. Richardson said those are the two practical considerations that affect the outside of the house, and the plans for the back are to make a larger kitchen, which was previously approved by the Commission. Swaim asked about lowering the bay and the effect on the brackets on the outside. Richardson said that the window would be lengthened, which would actually echo the other side. Terdalkar said that the lowest point of the bracket would touch the horizontal band so that they would be lowered about one and one- half feet. Swaim asked about the difference between elevation number two and elevation number three. Thompson, the contractor for this project, said he was showing different options for the roof, although he likes the idea of a hip roof as shown in option one. Swaim said that a flat roof would make this boxier. Terdalkar said he suggested that option, because he was looking at this as something that would be part of the overall original building. He said the bump out that is being proposed is not something that would be found on the original building. Terdalkar said he was looking for a way to make it part of the overall building. He said that the way the fenestration is planned, perhaps something can be done in line with the bay. Terdalkar said that because the bump out is so close to the bay, anything that is done here would not be in character with this house. Therefore, he said to the extent possible, he was recommending that the bump out be avoided, because it is not in character with the house. Terdalkar said the applicant is proposing a new addition, and there would certainly be a way to find a place for the new stairway, as part of the new addition but is not part of the old house. Richardson stated that the bump out is not ideal from her perspective either, but putting the basement stairway anywhere else would be cost prohibitive. Ponto asked if it would be excavated where the new addition comes out 14 feet from the closest corner. Thompson said that there will only be a crawl space there. He stated that there is also another foundation that was added on before that would be in the way. Thompson said that just trying to get the footprint of the new kitchen and trying to find a different space for that stairway would just change the whole plan and would not work very well. He said that this plan is so practical because there is already a stairway there. Thompson said the only problem is that he doesn't have the depth for the landing to meet code. He said it is only 30 inches, and he needs three feet. He said this still is not an inexpensive way to go, but it salvages the whole plan. Toomey asked if the bump out for the stairs would also have a bump out for the foundation. Thompson confirmed this. He said it really is a problem in that the foundation is so thick. Thompson said he really only needs to go out about eight inches, if necessary. He said he had thought that if he was going to bump it out, he would do it to make it more comfortable. Thompson said it doesn't have to be that deep. Swaim said she did not have a huge problem with the bump out, but she thought it might block the view of the bay somewhat. Thompson agreed it would block that view a little bit. Thompson said that using the existing stairwell is so practical, because it is already there; the square footage has already been taken out of the house. He said he already has the three feet required for the width where the door is, he just doesn't have the depth required to pass code for the landing. Thompson said he would have the headroom but would not have the depth. Weitzel asked about the existing access to the basement. Richardson replied that it is right in the center of the existing kitchen. Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 6 Terdalkar said that the kitchen would have a changed floor layout so perhaps there would be a way to accommodate the stairwell in a different location. Richardson responded that there is a bathroom in the basement there so that it would be a huge undertaking. Toomey asked about the foundation of the present addition. Thompson said that it has a stucco finish. Gunn said the fact that this is sort of a square, oddly-placed, oddly-shaped bump out obviously isn't desirable. He said he thought it might be better to angle the sides at a 45 degree angle, make it as narrow as possible, truncate the sides at 45, and put a three-sided roof on. Gunn said it would be a little less conspicuous and more in keeping with the house. He said it may be better than what is proposed but still may not be desirable. Gunn said it would be less noticeable if it wasn't square. He said that a bay doesn't stand out in the same way that a rectangular protrusion does. Thompson said he could also make it the minimum coming out if that is preferable. He said he just needs enough room to pass code, but he could definitely make this look more like a bay. Swaim said that if this was taken out as far as proposed, it would be about the same as the bay. Thompson agreed and said it would be very close. He said he needs about eight inches. Brennan said that if the corners are tapered, then the depth would be more important. Terdalkar said that he thought one could get the required 3 feet 6 inches with the bay shape. Weitzel said it is a circular arc from one point on the stairs, and an arc fits into the same space with the angles as a square. Gunn said that might allow the roof to be the same, to come down and pick up the width of the window above, which would look a lot less clumsy. He said that it would pick up the vertical lines and become more of a one and one-half vertical element. Swaim said this house has a big scale, so she would think why not take that extra twelve inches. She said that for the scale of the house, it would not make that much difference visually from the street. Ponto said he would be concerned if it sticks out as far as the bay. Thompson said it would stick out almost as far. Swaim said, however, that the bay is two stories. Weitzel asked what kind of roof the Commission would like to see here. Gunn said he would like to see a roof similar to what is on the bay that would respect the width of the window. . Weitzel said the issues here involve the fact that this is an original house with an original window, and it is towards the street instead of behind other features. He said that no one probably cares too much about adding on to an addition, so that is not an issue. Toomey said he did not think the bump out, even if it's bayed, will look right next to the other bay. Terdalkar said that the more it is dressed up, the more attention will be called to it. He said this will be seen as something that doesn't belong here. Toomey said that at the same time, expanding the existing bay will make this more of a focal point, which gives even more exposure to the new part. He added that, looking at the roofline, it doesn't appear to be a straight hip roof. Weitzel said that the house is a cross gable. He said that a small addition with a flat roof can be made watertight in that small of a space for the bump out. Gunn said that to minimize this visually, one could truncate the corners inward, make it the minimal protrusion, paint it all the same, miter the siding so as not to have corner boards, and don't trim it differently; it might be better than trying to make it look like something that shouldn't be there. He said that the roof would probably just be flashed. Thompson confirmed this. Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 7 Weitzel said that when the Commission approved this in April, it was for a roof with a gable extending back into the roof of the house. He asked if there is a reason the contractor decided to make this kind of a flat, hip roof, as opposed to a gable or a hip that meets the peak. Thompson said he could do a gable, because there are no windows in the way. Richardson said she did not have a preference for the roof. Weitzel said that on a historic house like this, there are a lot of examples of gable ends instead of a hip end, although this is an addition on an addition. He said there is not therefore a lot of historic integrity that would be impacted, but it might look a little nicer. MOTION: Brennan moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 519 South Summit Street as submitted, with either a hip or a gable roof on the rear portion and with a 16 to 20-inch bump out with the exterior styling as described by Gunn, such as the mitered corners and the flashed roof. Swaim seconded the motion. Ponto said he would prefer to not have the bump out come out that far but would prefer the more minimal value for the bump out. He said he liked the motion but would vote against it for that sole reason. Weitzel said the applicant has indicated a willingness to go with the smaller bump out. Toomey said he would prefer to see a gable roof on the back to match the front. He said the hip roof seems out of place. WITHDRAWAL OF SECOND: Swaim withdrew her second of the motion. Terdalkar asked if, since a gable was suggested, the Commission is considering a similar pitch as the roof that is on there now. Toomey said he would like to see the same pitch and to match the front gable. Weitzel said that porches and additions often have a different pitch than the main roof. Terdalkar said he thought that a similar pitch would result in a very large gable and a tall ridge line because of the 28-foot span. He stated that the gable could be spanned shorter, instead of spanning for the full length of the new addition, in order to be under the existing roof. Gunn said he had no problem with the motion as presented, although he feels that the gable roof would be a better option. He said, however, that there is a big difference between an eight-inch bump out and a 20-inch bump out, and that is what concerns him. Richardson said that if the aesthetics are such that the gable makes sense and it is not incredibly expensive, that would be okay with her, but she would like to have the choice in the event construction issues are encountered. Weitzel stated that the motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 519 South Summit Street, with a strong recommendation for a gable end on the back addition and with the bump out on the south to be no more than 12 inches in protrusion and to have truncated corners, siding to match, and be painted to match so as to minimize the visual appearance of it. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 26 East Market Street. Terdalkar stated that this property, Old Brick, is an Iowa City landmark. He said that the application is to replace the existing windows on the west addition, which is not a historic part of the building. He said that the windows are not historic, and the new windows will provide energy efficiency to the users of the space. Terdalkar said that staff recommends approval of this project. Terdalkar said the windows will be metal-clad wood windows and will be simulated awning windows, unlike the existing metal awning style windows with five different openings in each. He said that new Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 8 windows will have a large fixed panel to simulate top four openings and one awning window in the bottom for ventilation. Terdalkar said that the existing windows are metal windows. He said the applicant has indicated that the new windows will be dark in color, similar to the existing windows on other portions of the building. Terdalkar said he has suggested to the applicant that perhaps some of the windows can be filled-in, if they are not being used for light or ventilation. He said, after further review of the building he thinks that the openings are needed to break up the mass of the building as well as light and ventilation. Weitzel said that this is basically a large brick, two-story structure, built onto a mid 19th century brick building. Wellendorf, the contractor for this project, said that the structure was built in 1953. The lady with him showed on a photograph where, if they did close an opening, they would close the middle of the big window below and then have a double hung below it and make that side of the building more symmetrical. Weitzel replied that he did not feel there is a pressing need architecturally to do that. He added that this structure is old enough technically so that the Commission should determine whether it is historically significant in its own right. Wellendorf said that there is a large amount of air that goes through the windows. He said they are very much like regular, old-fashioned storm windows. Wellendorf said that one of the several yet not obvious reasons to do this project is to motivate the renters to keep the space up nicely. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows at 26 East Market Street, as submitted. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 721 East Colleqe Street. Terdalkar said that this is a non-historic structure in the College Green Historic District. He said that the application is to put fiber cement board siding on the main house by replacing the existing cedar siding, and to rebuild the carport that was blown away in the storm. Terdalkar said it will be rebuilt as it was, except for the siding, which will be fiber cement board. He said that he recommends approval of the project. Morrison, the contractor for this project, said that the only change here would be the use of fiber cement board. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 721 East College Street, as submitted. Gunn seconded the motion. Toomey suggested that the Salvage Barn might help remove the cedar siding. Morrison commented that a lot of the siding is cupped and cracked, but some of it would be salvageable. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 934 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar stated that the Commission reviewed this project on September 28th to approve the demolition of the chimney on this contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said the applicant was given the option of accepting a certificate of no material effect (CNME) for the reconstruction of the roof and the porch, but the applicant built the roof over the next weekend, and someone from the neighborhood called him to note that the roof was not constructed as it was before. Terdalkar said the certificate was not yet issued or the building permit was not issued for the reconstruction. He said the Commission is therefore looking at whether the applicant can request a certificate of appropriateness for the change in the roof pitch and the roof profile, which is without the deep eaves and without the flair that was there before. Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 9 Waltz, the owner of the property, showed a photograph of what he used at the Commission's last meeting and what he used for the reconstruction of the roof. Weitzel said the Commission is therefore considering if it can approve a certificate of appropriateness for the existing new roof. Waltz said that the permit was issued. He said he forgot to pick it up, and someone from the City stopped by the site and told him he needed to get the permit. Waltz said he then picked up the permit on Friday and finished the work on Sunday. Terdalkar said that because the certificate was not issued, the permit would have still been on hold. He said the Housing and Inspection Services Department needs a certificate from the Commission to release the permit. Waltz said that he was told that the hold was taken off. Terdalkar said that without the Chair's signature on the certificate, the permit should not have been issued. Terdalkar said the Commission agreed that the porch restoration and the roof restoration qualified for a CNME. He said the Commission gave approval for the demolition of the chimney. Gunn asked if the Commission gave approval for a CNME on Thursday, and Waltz picked up the permit on late Friday and did the project over the weekend. Waltz confirmed this. Gunn asked if this would have been built exactly like the old roof, this would have been legitimate. Weitzel and Terdalkar confirmed this. Waltz said he used the picture as a model, and he built this the way he thought it was supposed to be. Terdalkar said that what has changed in the construction is the height of the wall. He said that the windows in the old picture are very close to the soffits and the eaves. Terdalkar said that in the new construction, the difference has increased to about eight or nine inches, the height of the joist, and that is why there is the same peak height of the old roof. He said that the old roof was lower and the eaves were lower. Waltz asked if the cap should then not have been put on. Terdalkar confirmed this. Waltz said that he had to square the building up to support the building. Terdalkar said the problem is that that is not how it was presented to the Commission. He showed the photograph seen by the Commission upon which the Commission based its decision that the porch and roof could be rebuilt as seen in the photograph. Waltz asked if it is too high. Terdalkar said that because of the flair and the height of the eave, that comes below the joist that was built. Ponto said that the original overhang was a lot longer, so that brought the eave line down. Waltz said that he determined the overhang from the neighbor's property line on the left side of the house from where his house is. He said that one can build to the property line but not over the property line. Waltz said he took from the neighbor's point to his house to determine what he thought the overhang was, which was two and one-half feet. Shawver, the contractor for this project, said that if the overhang is any larger, it would overhang the neighbor's house, which is two feet and three inches away from Waltz's wall. He said that the overhang comes directly down in line with that, and that is how he determined what overhang they thought was on the house. Gunn asked if the roof was completely gone after the tornado. Waltz confirmed this. Terdalkar said the property line here is very close to this building, but this was not the original roof. He said that the original building could have been built with the overhang extending over the property line; that it is not unusual to see buildings built close to property boundaries. Waltz said the City said that he could not do that. Brennan said the current code does not allow that. Terdalkar said that is correct, and so the Commission approval is needed for the change. He said Historic Preservation Commission October 12,2006 Page 10 because of this situation, the owner could not rebuild the original, and the Commission needs to vote on that. Weitzel said that at that point, the owner was changing the original roof, but what the Commission was approving was the original roof being built. He said the Commission didn't know there was any property line issue. Weitzel said the owner is saying that he is just complying with the new code restriction on the roof, but Weitzel said that the owner could not rebuild the original roof at that point, and at that point the CNME does not work, because the original roof could not be rebuilt. He said the owner has to reapply and the Commission has to approve a new design that is appropriate to the house. Swaim asked, if the current code says the roof cannot be built beyond the property line, what would the options be. Weitzel said the option is to design the roof so that it looks as much like the original as possible. Toomey asked if there is less than five feet between the side of the house and the property line. Waltz and Terdalkar confirmed this. Weitzel said that the owner could bring the overhang back, built with or without the flair. Swaim asked if it is correct that the overhang cannot be what it was. Weitzel confirmed this. Swaim said the overhang as it is right now is what it has to be. Weitzel said that is the overhang that one is left with. Weitzel said that Terdalkar believes the wall was built taller than it was originally. Waltz said that on the back side of the house, there was a cap still left there, and he assumed there was a cap all around the house, so that is why he ended up putting that cap on there. Terdalkar said that the flair would have come down from that portion. Gunn said there was a cap there originally, but the flair came down. Terdalkar said that the flair was actually hiding the joist/cap. Waltz said that with the pictures that were looked at at the last meeting, flair was never mentioned. He said he just thought this was a hip roof, so that is what he put on there was a hip roof. Terdalkar said the discussion was that the roof would be built as shown in the photograph. Waltz and Shawver said they only had the one photograph. Terdalkar said that he printed out the photograph for Shawver the first time they met. He said that the project being reviewed was based on the color photograph that showed the original stucco on the house. Weitzel stated that at the point that the roof was changed, there did need to be a certificate of appropriateness. He said because the roofline needed to be changed because of the property line issue, there was a resulting change in the depth. Weitzel said the Commission now has to give approval for what is there. He said the question now is what can be done with this, can anything be done, or should the Commission approve it as it is. Ponto said that although having a flair is a distinctive architectural feature, given the significant tornado damage to this house, he would be willing to go with what is there now. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 934 Iowa Avenue, taking into account the code situation with the property line that would not allow the roof to be constructed exactly as it had been originally. Brennan seconded the motion. Gunn said the Commission could try to figure out a detail to minimize having too much room above the windows. He said that if the frieze board were a little taller that might minimize the space, or perhaps a crown mold would be a way to hide some of that. Terdalkar said there would not be any frieze board; there will be just siding going up to the soffit. Weitzel said it is important to remember that this was vinyl siding applied over a stucco house, and stucco did not have a frieze board, although a clapboard building would have a frieze board. Toomey said that just because someone has poured some concrete doesn't mean that he's within the property line. Waltz said it is actually a building that the City approved for the neighbor to add on, and the Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 11 neighbor added on right to the property line. He said he measured, and that building is not on his property. Waltz said he checked the property line from the assessor's book and measured from the street. He said that the property line is two feet six inches away from his foundation. Terdalkar said that the neighboring shed must be an existing non-conforming structure. Shawver stated that regardless of where the property line is, if the overhang goes out any farther, it will overhang the neighbor's outbuilding. Gunn asked about what will happen with the siding. Waltz said that it was vinyl siding, and new vinyl siding will go back on. Weitzel asked Waltz what he intended to do to cover up where the siding is missing. Waltz said he would put the original siding back on; because the whole back is intact, he would just match it and put it back on on the other three sides. Weitzel asked if there will be no architectural details underneath the new roof; it will just be siding coming down. Waltz said that is correct. Gunn said that if the frieze board is replaced up at the soffit line or moved up or a six or eight-inch frieze board is put on up at the top, it would look a little bit better and is not that hard to do. Weitzel said he thought it would also look better with corner boards too. He said that one can use fiber cement board corner boards and frieze board along the top, filled in with fiber cement or vinyl in between. Gunn suggested putting a frieze board on and corner boards on and side up to the corner boards using the J channels sitting up against the corner board made for that. He said that it could be painted two colors. Waltz said that it would end up being wrapped. Gunn asked if the windows are currently wrapped. Waltz said they are. Gunn asked if that would all stay. Waltz said he would change the windows, because a lot of them are all gone. He said that they would be put back with aluminum and would all be wrapped. Shawver asked if, with the corner boards and the frieze boards, the Commission just wants to achieve a specific look. Weitzel confirmed this and said that traditionally a clapboard sided house would have those wide boards at the side of the house, wide trim around the windows and a board at the top. Shawver asked if that look could be achieved using the vinyl siding, instead of a matching, white corner post. Weitzel said he has seen people do that, but it just looks like two colors of vinyl. Shawver asked if it would really look any better with two pieces of wood on the corner with vinyl siding up to it. Weitzel said that the corner boards could be made of fiber cement board. Gunn said that one can buy a standard corner that is made of a composite material already formed into a corner. He said that it is better than just a traditional vinyl siding job. Shawver said that if the Commission wants to get something closer to the original, none of that is like the original, because this was a stucco house. Weitzel said that is gone now, and the stucco has born torn off, so that can no longer be achieved. He said that if the Commission was trying to make it look like the original, it would be suggesting that the owner stucco the house. Weitzel said that the house has been heavily damaged by a storm and has been affected by a lot of different things. He said that a few things can be done to dress up the house to make it fit in with the neighborhood so that it doesn't detract from the other buildings there. Weitzel said it will increase the value of the property and will increase the look and feel of the neighborhood. He said the Commission is just asking for a few extra details. Weitzel said the fiber cement board is a paintable, durable material, and there is also a composite material that can be used as a corner board. Waltz asked if the vinyl siding would then fit back into it. Weitzel said that one would run a J channel along the side of it. Gunn said that the flair roof and the stucco sort of go together. Weitzel said that most four-squares, stucco or not, had flaired roofs. Gunn said that there were many houses built with corner boards and frieze boards and no flair on the roof. Weitzel agreed. He said that at this point, the Commission would like to see the look conserved so that it would not detract from the neighborhood. Historic Preservation Commission October 12,2006 Page 12 Gunn said that he did not think the Commission could make Waltz put the corner boards on, although arguably it could make him put the frieze boards on because they were there, although they were covered. Gunn said it would not add much to the cost to put corner boards on and frieze boards and side it in between the windows and in between the corner boards. Weitzel said that there is a brand new house on Governor Street next to the AME Church that is done in fiber cement board or vinyl that has corner boards on it. He said that is what it would look like. Swaim said she had noticed that this had a new roof on it but noticed that something was not quite right about it. Waltz said it might look that way because the porch is not there yet. Swaim said that the corner boards will somewhat mitigate the loss of the roof and not draw so much attention to the fact that something is missing. She said that she is glad this house was not demolished and is being renovated. Weitzel said the Commission seems to be strongly suggesting the corner boards without making it a requirement. Shawver asked if the Commission wanted specific dimensions. Gunn suggested four inches and said that fiber cement board is an approved material. He said the frieze board could be that material as well and could be six to eight inches. Weitzel said he thought six would be okay, but eight would be better. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto amended the main motion to include a recommendation for fiber cement corner boards and frieze boards. Brennan seconded the amendment to the main motion. Weitzel said that the Commission would be glad to give technical assistance on this project. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1, with Toomey voting no. Waltz said that some of the windows on the house are damaged and some are gone. He said that he would like to put the windows that are in there now with the five exactly the way it is and do wood on the inside and metal clad on the outside. Shawver said that the front two windows would be an entire window with the frame, and he has had it designed with the five lights up top and the open sash on the bottom - two double-hungs side by side. He said that all of the other windows would be sash packages but designed with five lights up top, an open light on the bottom and wood framed with the metal clad on the outside. Shawver said that the windows would sit in the same frames. Terdalkar asked if there would be muntin bars on both sides of the glass. Shawver said that all of the windows have muntin bars on the inside of the glass. Terdalkar said that the preference would be to have the muntin bars on the exterior, and between the glass panes. Gunn said that a contributing structure in a conservation district has to have the muntins fixed to the outside and the inside of the glass. Weitzel said that when reviewing replacement windows, the Commission isn't able to do anything with the trim, so that stands as it is. Terdalkar said that the trim is not going to be changed anyway. Shawver said that some of the aluminum is dented and so it will be rewrapped. Waltz said he was not sure yet what to do with the door. Weitzel commented that HIS required the new driveway to accommodate the required parking space behind the building, which resulted in the stairway to be taken out, so now there is a door that has no stairway. Weitzel suggested either building a stairway so that a car can still get past or keep the door permanently screwed shut. Shawver said the door needs attention, because the frame is out of torque. Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 13 Terdalkar said that this is a typical four-square plan with a central stairway and exit door. Weitzel said that having the door up two feet in the air with no steps does look silly here. He suggested putting in a window here to match the one in the landing above. Gunn suggested a double hung window and also suggested doing away with the overhang. Gunn asked about the sash packages. Shawver said they are made of wood but are aluminum clad on the outside. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 934 Iowa Avenue for the complete replacement of the pair of lower windows on the front with metal clad wood windows and for sash replacement packages for the two upper windows on the front and the windows on the east and west sides to match the existing, for the removal of the overhang over the side door, for the replacement of that door with a window to match the landing window above it, and to fill in with brick across where the door had been, with window trim to match the existing. Toomey seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0. Brennan asked Waltz if he was charged a fee for a demolition permit, and Waltz said he had been. Brennan said that he read the demolition permit ordinance and does not feel that Waltz should have been charged for a demolition permit for something that did not exist. Weitzel said that technically, the Commission had to consider it a demolition. He said the Commission was not requiring a permit for the demolition but was treating it as a demolition, because it was a pre- existing feature that the owner did not want to restore. Regarding the porch, Waltz said that the inside of the porch has the same brick; there are actually two layers. He stated that he would like to tear apart the porch, bring all the brick to the outside to match all the outside with the original, and then try to match as closely as he can and then put it to the inside of the porch so that it can't be seen. Weitzel asked if the columns would be rebuilt as they were and all four sides would be done with exterior brick. Waltz confirmed this. Weitzel said he thought that would be okay. Gunn asked about the porch roof. Waltz showed a photograph of how it would look. Shawver said that the porch roof would be quite a bit similar, because it is already outlined on the house. He said the only question may be how far of an overhang over the columns there should be. Weitzel said that it should match the upper roof. Terdalkar said that if one really wants to find the overhang, one can find it from the profile by extending the angle and extending the horizontal line to get the point. Weitzel and Ponto said they would like to see the porch roof match the roof that is on there now. Gunn asked Waltz what he had in mind for the soffit above and on the porch. Waltz said that it will be the vented aluminum that is there now. Gunn said that he has seen aluminum material that runs lengthwise, which would be closer than running them the other way. Weitzel said that on an old house, the board would run the long way, and the porch would run the same way. Shawver said that he might not be able to find a long enough piece, and Weitzel stated that the boards would be pieced together. Toomey said that it is actually easier to put up than all those little pieces. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 934 Iowa Avenue for the reconstruction of the brick on the porch, with the columns and outside face being rebuilt from the inside brick on the porch, the soffit material being horizontal on the porch and the house overhang to simulate original wood, and the overhang on the porch to match the overhang of the existing roof of the house, rather than the original. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Waltz said that the front door has been destroyed and asked if a permit would be required for door replacement. Terdalkar said that if a new frame is required, then he will need approval. Swaim suggested Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 14 that there might be replacement doors for this at the Salvage Barn. Weitzel added that Jeld-Wen makes some really nice historic looking doors. He said that the Commission would prefer that it have divided lights to match the windows. Gunn said that by the guidelines, the door has to be paintable and has to look like a panel door. Shawver said that he believed the door had only four lights in it and not five, as the windows do. Weitzel said he thought that would be acceptable. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 934 Iowa Avenue for the replacement of the door with a panel door similar to the one that is being replaced. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Shawver asked about following up on the frieze boards and corner boards. Weitzel said the Commission and staff could give recommendations on that. He said that it is not required, but it would be great to have that done. Gunn pointed out that the lengthwise soffit was in the motion and is a requirement. 830 ColleQe Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the College Green Historic District. He said that on Friday, someone called HIS to report that the rolled edges of the roof built for the false-thatch appearance had been removed. He said that the shingles with unique pattern were also removed and new shingles were installed. Terdalkar said the applicant, Poppen, had called him a few weeks after the tornado asking about reshingling and whether or not a permit would be required. Terdalkar said that because this is not a multi- family structure, he told the applicant that he would not need a permit to reshingle. Terdalkar said, however, that he was not contemplating removal of the false thatch in that process. He said there was therefore some confusion, and the applicant made a good faith effort to contact the housing inspectors and himself to check on the permit process, although he did not think anyone contemplated that the thatch roof would be lost after reshingling. Terdalkar showed a photograph of where the rolled edges of the roof were removed. He said that because this is a significant part of the roof style and profile, it would be considered a demolition of an architectural feature of the house, and that is what the Commission is now looking at. Poppen said that he did call the City to find out what permits were needed and was told that as long as he was not replacing 2/3 or more of the sheeting, no permit was needed. He said he was then directed to Terdalkar, who spoke to him about the historic aspect. Poppen said he informed Terdalkar that he would try to find shingles to match and continue on with what he had. Poppen said that the shingles that were on the roof are no longer made, so he went with an architectural shingle, a laminated product. He said several contractors told him that he should not wrap the laminate, because it would just break. Poppen said that from a preservation point of view, he also wanted to prevent the material from rotting, as he felt that when one wraps the shingle, the water follows the shingle around to the fascia and starts to deteriorate the fascia. Poppen said he therefore chose to replace that with drip edge, and the intent was to then paint the fascia to match the soffit. Swaim asked about the thickness of the new roof where the roll had been. Poppen said he thought it was about three inches. Terdalkar said that the rolled edge was about seven inches in diameter. Weitzel said that it was rolled around what is basically a wooden cage - a piece of wood cut into a C, and then one runs quarter stock nailed to the C shapes. He said that it is a fairly gentle bend, because it was designed for asphalt shingles. Terdalkar produced a sample of the curved piece of wood that had been on the house. Poppen said there were sections of it that were in pretty bad shape because of the water. Swaim said she believes this is a huge loss of a really significant architectural element of that house. Terdalkar said he talked to the person who built this, Harry Louis. He said that the portion of the roof in Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 15 question was rebuilt in 1985 or 1986 and reshingled. Terdalkar said that Louis could not find the type of shingle that was there before, but he had found a similar type in Minneapolis. Terdalkar said that Louis said it was not necessary to remove this in the first place, and even though the product has been discontinued, there are other pliable products that can be used here. Terdalkar said that Louis planned to do some research to find a product to replace/repair this. He said that Louis told me that it would be expensive now that the most of the rolled edge has been taken off, but Louis has done this and said he could do it again. Toomey said that there is a matching standard three-tab that will match the colors on the roof, because they're used on the ridges. Poppen asked if that would be acceptable, and Toomey said that he would find that acceptable. Poppen asked about the fact that it would contribute to the decay of the fascia. Toomey said that could be addressed with flashing. Ponto asked what was original on this house. Terdalkar did not have a photograph but said that Louis said it was a similar thatch shingle with a little thicker profile. Gunn asked if this was something that was on there and Louis rebuilt, and Terdalkar confirmed this. Terdalkar said Louis had to rebuild it because there was damage due to lack of maintenance. Toomey said that for the straight run parts of this, one could use a piece of PVC drainage pipe and wrap it right down the middle and then put that on underneath the shingle. Terdalkar said he did not think there is significant damage here, because the water drains down the slope, not around the rolled edge. He said that he did not believe that it would decay the fascia boards, as the most of the paint on the fascia is still there. Weitzel said that the Commission is looking at approving the demolition of this material with the reapplication of drip edge in its place. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate for the demolition of this architectural feature of the roof at 830 College Street. Swaim seconded the motion. Terdalkar said the owner does not need a permit to replace the shingles but does need a permit to remove the rolled edges of the roof-a significant architectural feature. Ponto agreed that this is a really unique house. He said he would hate to lose that curved edge if there was any way at all to avoid it. Ponto said that he has heard some option for redoing the curved edges. Gunn suggested that the roof can be left reshingled as it is, and the new curved portion could be worked in. Ponto said he is fine with the applicant using architectural shingles for the main portion of the roof. He said it is the edges that the Commission is concerned with. Swaim said she is not certain that architectural shingles are the best choice, but they're already on, and the Commission does not have purview over that. She said, however, that she would vote against the demolition because of the importance of that rolled feature. Weitzel agreed that since the roof is already done, a new curved edge should be worked in with the existing. Toomey said that it should not be that bad. He said that it should just require a few bundles of shingles to wrap the edge again, just some standard three-tabs that will match the architectural shingles. The motion failed on a vote of 0-7. Poppen said he could do as the Commission has directed. He said, however, that he is disappointed in the process, because he did seek out permission and guidance, and now he would be dealing with a project that would cost twice as much as it would had he received the guidance that he was looking for. Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 16 Weitzel said there has been a couple of applications that indicate that the Commission needs to go back and see how it is handling applications that come in and how calls from the field are being addressed. He said the Commission needs to make sure that the City is very, very specific in what it is telling people and that no specific clearance is given without really knowing what is going on. Poppen said his understanding is that he has approval for the shingles but just needs to replace the bull nose, wraparound feature. Weitzel said that the Commission has not specified how that should be done, so Poppen just needs to create the look with the same profile. He said that he does not have to rebuild the part with wood but could use PVC or something like that. Gunn asked if Poppen questioned whether he needed a building permit and was told no, because this was replacing shingles. Poppen said he was told that no permit was needed, so he thought he could do what he needed to replace the shingles. He said he also contacted Harry Louis and talked to Terdalkar and Jann three or four times, just to make sure nothing had changed. Poppen recommended for the procedure that if a property is in a historic district, regardless of whether or not a permit is required, the applicant should be required to come before the Commission. Terdalkar said that the Commission now knows that there is a gap that needs to be addressed. He said that Harry Louis has agreed to do more research on this and will come up with some numbers and information about the type of shingles that will wrap around. Poppen said that he would like to finish the roof as he was doing and probably not do the bull nose until the summer to get better conditions for the wrap. He said that right now things are too brittle to use. Weitzel stated that this is a unique case because the demolition has partially occurred. He asked Commission members if they would be amenable to specifying a time period to allow this to be done. The consensus of the Commission was to allow this to be completed in the next twelve months. Poppen asked if there was any State grant money available for this type of project. Terdalkar said that there may some leftover emergency money at the State level, but he did not think this would qualify as tornado damage. Weitzel agreed that the State would probably not grant money for this. Terdalkar said that this is an income generating property and is part of the National Register historic district, and so it might qualify for federal tax credits for historic rehabilitation. He said that the work done has to be a certain percentage of the value of the property but said that he would look into the matter and see what is available. Poppen added that he would like to add an egress window on the northwest corner of the house at some point. He said that the window is currently a fixed basement window in the laundry room. Poppen stated that he would like to make the window deeper and put in a well. Ponto said that the Commission will want to see some plans for the window but has approved that type of thing before. Weitzel suggested that Poppen come back with photographs of what the window will look like and where it will be going on the house for the Commission's review. Poppen asked if he can now finish his roof. Terdalkar said he would give HIS a verbal approval for the completion of the roof. He added that Poppen would then have twelve months to restore the pre-existing condition of the roof edges. MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 AND SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 MEETINGS: Because there were no substantive changes to the minutes, the consensus of the Commission was to file the minutes for both the September 14th and September 28th meetings. OTHER: Historic Preservation Commission October 12, 2006 Page 17 Central Plannina District: Terdalkar stated that as most of the Commission members live in the Central Planning District, they should have received postcards notifying them of the first meeting in the Central Planning District planning process. He said the area under discussion is bounded by North Dodge Street on the north, Highway Six on the south, 1st Avenue on the east and the edge of the downtown on the west. Terdalkar said this process is a part of the Comprehensive Planning and said that whenever there is a or zoning or subdivision matter regarding a proposed development, the district plans and the Comprehensive Plan are referred to in order to guide development. Terdalkar said that Commission members are all invited to attend the meetings. He stated that this is the process where residents would be able to comment about the vision for this area for the next ten to fifteen years. Terdalkar said that this is a fairly long process, and there will be several meetings after this kick-off meeting. He said that in future some subcommittee can be formed to focus on certain issues. Terdalkar said that a website has been created and will provide updated information. Overview of the 2006 Historic Review: Gunn asked how many certificates of appropriateness the Commission has considered this year. Terdalkar responded that the Commission has reviewed close to 100 applications since April of this year. Gunn said that on the whole, it has been a remarkably smooth process. Weitzel added that with having guidelines and working on these issues, the process keeps getting better. He said, however, that there needs to be a way to be more careful so that people can't wiggle out of how the Commission directs them to do things. Burford said she would like to see the Commission forward its minutes to Marlys Svendsen for an analysis of some of the issues that have come up, and then Svendsen could make recommendations about fine tuning that could be done regarding the ordinances and the guidelines. Burford said that a visual reference or guide would also be very helpful, as most issues involve communication, and many people respond better to visual communication. Weitzel commented that he and Terdalkar have discussed having Bodie and Matt work on specifying what a complete application entails. Terdalkar said that when there is more time, the Commission will be able to work on education and awareness, setting up workshops for people. He added that during that process, it is important to use the language that contractors use and understand. Swaim suggested that it would also be useful to have samples of recommended materials at educational forums and at the Commission's meetings. Disaster Recovery Grant: Weitzel announced the list of properties that were awarded grant money and the amount awarded to each. He stated that the total amount of money requested was $67,287, and all of the available $10,000 was awarded. Weitzel said the grant was funded by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Friends of Historic Preservation. Weitzel said there is another grant round coming up for storm damage money - about $50,000 to $60,000 is left. Terdalkar said he was unsure of the deadline date, because it had not been widely announced. Weitzel said this money is from a State HRDP grant for National Register potentially eligible projects. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte = o .- ~ ~ 's 8"0 o 100 U 8 ~ =~ .S ~ \C "'y=> ~ = => i: ~ M ~"O ~ = ~ ~ loot ~< .- 100 o ... ~ .- = N W I I I W W I I I .... >< >< >< - - - - 0 0 I I I 0 0 I I I .... I I I I I I co I W I I I I W I ~ >< >< >< >< >< 0 I >< - - en 0 I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I 0 W W I I I I I I I .... >< >< - - - co 0 0 I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I .... W I I I I I I I ~ - >< >< >< .... 0 I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I .... >< 0 >< >< - .... I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I N I I I I I W I I N >< >< >< >< - - CD I I I I I 0 I I 0 I I I I I I I co I I I I I I I 0 >< >< >< >< - CD I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I It) I W I I I I I I W N >< >< >< >< >< >< in - I I I I I 0 I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I .... I W I I I I I I I I .... >< >< >< - - It) I 0 I I I I I I I I 0 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 0 I I I I I I I I I CD I W W I I I I I .... I >< >< >< >< - - - M I 0 0 I I I I I 0 I I I I I I N I W W I I I I I N I >< >< >< >< >< - - - N I 0 0 I I I I I 0 I I I I I I en I I I I I I - I >< >< >< >< >< >< >< N I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I en I I I I I I .... I >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - I I I I I I .... 0 I I I I I I Ul 0> co I'- ~ I'- co ~ co 0> I'- I'- 0> 0> 0> ~ co E ~ ~ ~ S2 S2 S2 ~ ~ ~ ~ S2 S2 S2 ~ .... .- 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> ala. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f-X W C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? ... C ~ Q) ... E a. III ~ c iii 0 E III C ~ .= E 'C 0 ~ >- E c 0 ... iii ::::l .ll: E Q) 'i ... 1/1 Q) C III 0 III Q) 0 III E 1/1 .tt Q) C 't: 0 C .c (J (J .c 'E ~ .c '; 1/1 Q) .ll: e ::::l III U U C ~ 0 ~ ~ III 'E u u E III III Co:) ::::IE ::::IE i III 0 t/) 0 III (J w ::::IE Q. Q. t/) f- co u.i =E a: =E =E =E a: =E ci t-= t-= z -; -; -; -; -; "0 Q) .... III Q) i3 c>.o xc:E W:;::::;Q) ~ lIP~ 'E'EQ)::2:CO Q) III _ 1Il~.o<(oo ~.o zz 0..<(111111 ~II 1I!:!:!::2: ~><ooz