The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-08-2007 Historic Preservation Commission IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, February 8, 2007 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 Minutes for November 21, 2006 and December 14, 2006 meeting 4. Discussion Items A. National Preservation Awards B. Training Opportunities C. Preservation Plan Update D. Update on 923 Iowa Avenue and 411 S. Governor Street projects 5. Adjourn ]OW:I em llistoric Preservation Cotntnission IlaILIIIII': \\,L;]llIlgl<1I1' Slrec.'I, 1<1\\'8 I. \ '>:':'10 MEMORANDUM Date: February 8, 2007 To: The Historic Preservation Commission From: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Re: February 8 Meeting Agenda Items 1) 2007 National Preservation Awards Each year the National Trust celebrates the best of preservation by presenting National Preservation Awards to individuals and organizations whose contributions demonstrate excellence in historic preservation. Staff believes that worthy projects in Iowa City should be considered for nomination particularly for the National Preservation Honor Awards category. The deadline for nominations is March 1, 2007. Please refer to the additional information attached herewith. 2) Training Opportunities Preservation Leadership Training (pLT) is an intensive one-week program that provides participatory learning experiences in leadership and organizational development; stimulating education sessions; and up-to-the-minute information on current preservation practices, issues, and action strategies. PL T is for board members and staff of preservation organizations and agencies, Main Street communities, and others who are in a position to influence preservation efforts in their communities. Application deadline: 3/30/2007 3) Preservation Plan Update The initial public input process for the Plan Update is complete and staff is expecting to receive the draft plan soon for review. Our preservation planning consultant, Marlys Svendsen, has requested to present the draft plan to Commission in a special meeting, tentatively in the fourth week of March. The draft will be provided to the Commission well before the meeting for review and comments. 4) Update on 923 Iowa Ave. and 411 S. Governor St. projects In their January meeting, the Board of Adjustment found that the Commission's decision to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new construction at 923 Iowa Avenue was arbitrary and further approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new construction with conditions. The Board decision is attached herewith. At the request of the applicant, the consideration for special exception for the new church building at 411 S. Governor Street has been deferred. Staff has been informed that the applicant has requested deferral to reconsider the project proposal. After the December meeting of the Commission, staff has received three letters, two from the State Historical Society and one from Jan Nash, of Tallgrass Historians L.c. regarding the new church building. The letters are attached herewith for your information. National Preservation Honor Awards The National Preservation Honor Awards recognize the efforts of individuals, nonprofit organizations, public agencies, and corporations whose skill and determination have given new meaning to their communities through preservation. These efforts include citizen attempts to save and maintain important landmarks, as well as architects, craftsmen, and developers whose exemplary work restores the richness of the past. We applaud the vision of elected and appointed officials who support preservation projects and legislation in their communities, and educators and journalists who help Americans understand the value of preservation. All demonstrate commitment, leadership and achievement worthy of national recognition. The National Trust is particularly interested in nominations that demonstrate historic preservation as a strategy to re- new the viability of diverse older neighborhoods; revitalize the livability of older communities; protect the historic and scenic character of America's rural landscapes; and meet community needs through the rehabilitation and ac- tive use of individual landmarks. National Preservation Honor Award nominees are judged for the success they have achieved in the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and interpretation of our architectural and cultural heritage. The general evaluation criteria include the following: * Impact of the nominee's project or effort on the community * Quality and degree of difficulty of the nominee's project or effort * Degree to which the nominee's project or effort is unusual or pioneering, or serves as an example that influences others A jury of active preservationists is invited each year to review nominations for National Preservation Honor Awards. Although the composition of the jury changes each year, the National Trust strives to achieve balanced representation from the various professional preservation disciplines and geographic regions of the United States. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call (202) 588-6236 or ernail awards@nthp.org. Eligibility * Any individual, organization, agency or project involved in historic preservation is eligible to receive a National Preservation Award. * Nominated projects must have been completed within the last three years. * Nominations submitted in previous years that were not selected to receive an award may be revised, expanded and resubmitted. * Nominations may be made without the knowledge of the nominee. * Self-nominations will be a~cepted. * Nominations for posthumous awards will not be accepted. * National Trust trustees, advisors, and staff are not eligible to receive a National Preservation Award for individual achievement during the period of their active service and for three years thereafter. Properties owned by or affiliated with the National Trust will not be con- sidered, nor will individuals or groups of individuals for their work relative to National Trust properties. o.{. G ENE RA L R E ll. U I R [ M [N r s Nomination Requirements Each nomination must include the following: -* A completed nomination form. -* $25 nomination fee. Please make checks payable to the National Trust fo,' Historic Preservation. -* A concise description (750 words or less) of the project, program. organization. or individual that is being nominated. If the nominated project involves a site or district, explain its historical significance. the challenges over- come, unique strategies and activities carried out. and the impact of these activities on the community. Describe the people involved and how this project could be a model for other communities. Those who made a signincant contribution to its success should be listed as co-nominees. If the nominee is an individual or organization. describe their accomplishments and contributions in the area of historic preservation. -* Fifteen (15) digital images at a minimum resolution of 400 dpi and five (5) 8xIO professional quality color prints. Most images should be in a horizontal format. The digital images must be submitted on a CD. Images should illustrate various aspects of the project or program-before and after results, overall exteriors from a variety of angles and interior shots. Significant architectural details should be identified with close-up shots. Images must include people and activity around the site. including a shot of the project in the context of the greater community. Nominations for individual achievement must include at least two different head shots of the nominee. The balance should illustrate the body of work for which the individual is being' nominated. All images must be labeled and include a credit line for publication. Prints must be submitted in a protective plastic sleeve. All images should be in focus with proper exposure. -* Up to nve supporting brochures or news clippings. -* Up to nve letters of recommendation that demonstrate community support. A listing of any awards received may also be included. Nomination Procedures Nominations must conform to the procedures outlined in this brochure to be considered for a National Preservation Award. All nomination materials must be submitted in a pocket- style folder. All nominations not selected to receive a Trustees, ACHP. or HUD Secretary's Award will be considered in the judging for the National Preservation Honor Awards. unless the nominator requests otherwise by checking the appropriate box on the nomination form. National Preservation Award, recipients will be notined no later than August 1st. In the case of all other entrants. the nominator will be notined. Award announcements and presentations are made at a special ceremony during the National Preservation Conference in October. Wi nning nominations will become the property of the National Trust and will not be returned. Other nomina- tions will be returned. Return packaging, address and postage or shipping account number must be included with each nomination. Every effort will be made to pro- tect the submissions. The National Trust cannot be held responsible for any of the material submitted. Deadline Complete submissions for all award nominations must he postmarked no later than March I, ~007. 05 Preservation Leadership Training I National Trust for Historic Preservation Goals . To increase the capacity of local preservation organizations and commissions by identifying and training current and potential leaders who have the ability to dramatically increase their effectiveness. . To empower grassroots organizations and local preservation commissions to achieve preservation successes in their communities. . To create, maintain and support a national network of leaders of the grassroots preservation movement. . To heighten local understanding and awareness of the value of preservation and to explore and present new ideas for approaching local preservation issues in the host community. Educational Objectives Community Leadership Through a series of action learning experiences participants will: Edsall leads the "Community Leadership" session in Hot Springs, Arkansas, 2000. Photo: Anne-Leslie Owens. . build competence and courage for leadership, approaching leadership as a mix of personal actions and attitudes that focus the energy and resources of a community on the achievement of its goals; . have the opportunity to identify individual motivation for leadership and explore and develop preferred approaches to executing leadership responsibilities in the community. Politics of Preservation Participants will develop a basic understanding of: . how to work with local elected and appointed officials; . how to make an effective case for preservation in the public arena; . the importance of and strategies for building support among public officials and the community at large. Human Resources Participants will develop an understanding of: . the elements of a successful volunteer program, including recruitment, screening, placement, evaluation, recognition, and volunteer/staff relations . similar issues directed specifically to board-level volunteers, with an emphasis on board/staff relations and appropriate roles for each . basic personnel management issues and strategies. Strategic Planning Participants will develop an understanding of: . strategic planning as an integrated process, which relates program goals to human and financial resources . budget as a working companion to the strategic plan . when to get professional help and who to ask. Financial Resources Participants will gain a basic understanding of: . identifying and cultivating appropriate funding prospects; . involving the board of directors in development activities; . making the case for the importance of funding your program; . the budget as a management tool; . strategic planning as an integrated process which relates program goals to financial resources; and . when professional help is appropriate and where to find it. Legal Tools Participants will develop a basic understanding of: . legal tools available to preservationists at the local level, including ordinances, incentives, zoning and planning; . the constitutional basis of support for historic preservation; . state preservation-related legislation and its impact on local preservation activity. http://www.nationaltrust.org/plt/goals-plt.htm I Page 1 of 1 usan 2/2/2007 Preservation Leadership Training I National Trust for Historic Preservation Economics of Preservation Participants will gain a basic understanding of the: . economics of real estate; . myths and realities in comparing rehabilitation to new construction; . public economic benefits of rehabilitation; . economic realities of rehabilitation. Hands-On Design Workshop Participants will develop an understanding of: Page 20f2 . the basic elements of design and the design issues that arise when new structures are built in historic areas or additions/alterations are made to historic buildings; . issues and strategies that can be applied to developing responses to the assigned team projects. Format &. Methods PL T ~ Preservation Boot Camp but that is a good thing. Many of us need the broad scale training the Trust is providing. While many of us have had experience in the various training program areas, we haven't always had the training. You all provided a rather unforgettable week-the place, the people attending, the program, the speakers and the team projects. It was quite a package, and I am taking home very usable materials. Jan Devereaux, Board Chair Cleveland Restoration Society Cleveland, Ohio How It Works Preservation Leadership Training is built around a combination of lecture, discussion and practical application. Trainers are nationally recognized experts in the fields of economics, law, design, resources development, strategic planning, and financial management, among others -- all with a focus on building both individual and institutional leadership. Team Project Participants learn best by "doing." Consequently, in addition to daytime classroom sessions, PLT includes a team project which uses the host community as a living laboratory for preservation issues, with participants working in teams during the course of the week on a specific preservation problem in the host community. The week culminates with a public presentation of their recommendations on the final day of the program. The team project, assigned at the start of the week is designed to: . Provide a vehicle for participants to apply the lessons learned during the week to solving real problems; . Provide a teamwork exercise and an opportunity to practice public presentation skills for participants; . Contribute to preservation activity in the host community by focusing the attention and perspective of Preservation Leadership Training participants on local issues. Hot Springs resident Nathaniel Robinson gives a group of participants a tour of the Woodmen of Union Building, Hot Springs, Arkansas, 2000. Photo: Jeff Tully PL T team projects have actually helped save buildings in several communities. In Fort Collins, Colorado, the team project dealt with the long-vacant downtown Linden Hotel, subject of more than 20 years of dubious development efforts. The attention the PL T team project brought to the hotel rallied the community and today the hotel is rehabilitated and back in business as a multi-use commercial operation. The Woodmen of Union building in Hot Springs, Arkansas (seePhQtoaQoYe), was named for the black fraternal order that constructed it. It had once been the heart of the local black community, featuring a hotel, hospital, bath house, nurses training program and 2,SOO-seat theater. The PL T team project in 2000 drew attention to the building which had been vacant since 1981. The new owners plan to restore the historic interior spaces, including the bathhouse and auditorium, andcreate apartments for the elderly. http://www .nationaltrust.org/pltlgoals -p1t.html 2/2/2007 Prepared by Sarah Walz, Planning Associate, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, January 10, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Edgar Thornton, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: John Beasley, Shelley McCafferty, Jim Enloe, Jim Estin, Tim Weitzel APPEALS: APL06-00004 Reconsideration of an application submitted by John Roffman appealing the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue. FindinQs of Fact: By a vote of 3-2, the Board finds that the subject property is located in the College Hill Conservation District and that the proposed building is subject to the Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Buildings listed in section 10.1 of the Historic Preservation Handbook. The Board finds that, in denying the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed building, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) cited the increase in physical mass of the new building, primarily focusing on the increase in depth. The board also finds that the relevant guidelines in section 10.1 of the Historic Preservation handbook state that "measures should be incorporated into the design of a new building that help to reduce its 'visual mass' and overall height." The Board finds that the HPC has no authority to regulate the density or occupancy of a proposed building and that density is governed and regulated by the base zone and other site development standards of the Zoning Code. Based on statements in the transcripts of the HPC meetings, the Board finds that while the Commission did mention visual mass in its deliberations and conclusion, in its discussion prior to voting numerous commissioners consistently cited density, number of occupants, building size, physical mass and neighborhood concerns as the pervasive reason for denying a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed building at 923 Iowa Avenue. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that it reviews decisions of the Historic Preservation Commission to determine whether the Commission exercised its powers and followed the Historic Preservation guidelines and regulations established by law or whether the Commission's action was made without regard to the law or the underlying facts of the case and is thereby patently arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion or pretextual. The Board concludes that in its consistent citing of density, occupancy, physical mass and neighborhood concerns prior to denying the certificate of appropriateness, the HPC misapplied its guidelines and acted outside of its authority. The Board concludes that the resulting decision by HPC to deny a certificate of appropriateness based.on density, occupancy, physical mass and neighborhood concerns exceeded the Commission's authority and was patently arbitrary and capricious. Having made this determination, the Board must now make such decision as ought to have been made, and to that end has all the powers of the Commission and is bound by the same guidelines and rules governing the Commission's decision in deciding the merits of the pending application. Board Discussion on Disposition of Application for Certificate of Appropriateness: The Board finds that while the applicant has incorporated measures into the design of the new building to help reduce the "visual mass" and overall height of the building, there is concern that the rear 14 feet of the side elevation is lacking in architectural features that reduce its visual impact to neighboring properties. The Board finds that a board and batten treatment, similar to that used on the large bay, will effectively break up the visual mass of the rear 14 feet of the side elevation. Disposition: By a vote of 3-2, finding that the Commission's decision exceeded its authority and was arbitrary and capricicius, the Board approves APL06-00004, an application submitted by John Roffman, appealing the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue. By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed building at 923 Iowa Avenue based on the submitted plans and subject to the additional requirement that the architect to use board and batten treatment on the rear 14 feet of the side elevation to reduce the visual mass of the building. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C-1 (E) City of Iowa 't , Iowa. STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 10th day of January, 2007, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this day of ,2007 Marian K. Karr, City Clerk STATE HISTORICAL Ii SOCIETY of OWA A Division of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs December 26, 2006 Mr. Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St Iowa City, Iowa 55240 RE: Bethel AM.E. Church, Iowa City Dear Mr. Terdalkar, The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) appreciates being made aware of the proposed addition to the Bethel AM.E. Church, and we understand that the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) acted on the proposal by approving a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the project, with conditions, on December 14,2006. We agree with the conditions suggested, but noted that the HPC did not condition the COA on the placement or size of the addition. We also noted that drastic changes are proposed for the front entry and for the interior of the original building, which could possibly affect the historic and architectural integrity of the National Register-listed property. We are concerned that the proposed work is not in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Our office understands the strong desire of the congregation to increase the size of their facility and appreciates their willingness to retain the historic building and to remain located within this neighborhood. We know the congregation is proud of its history, as members of the church initiated the listing of the property on the National Register of Historic Places in the late 1990s. However, we believe the congregation's facility needs could be accomplished through a more sensitive rehabilitation and addition. SHPO Preservation Consultant Jack Porter expressed his initial opinion on the proposed addition in an email to you on December 7. In that email, he indicated that he felt "the new church will need to be pushed back and separated from the historic church more than is shown on these drawings. As it presently is designed, the new church addition will appear to overwhelm the historic church by just its mass and closeness." Unfortunately, Mr. Porter was unable to provide a full analysis of the design prior to the HPC meeting and will not be able to do so until he returns to the office on January 3, 2007. We recommend that the architect of the addition discuss the proposed design with Mr. Porter to determine whether or not a more appropriate solution can be found. He can be reached at 515.242.6152 or at jack.porter@iowa.gov. With slight changes to the design and placement of the addition on the lot, it may be possible to respect the historic building and provide a new home into which the congregation can continue to grow and flourish. ' Sincerely, Barbara A Mitchell, Architectural Historian Iowa Historic Preservation Office 600 EAST LOCUST STREET, DES MOINES, IA 50319-0290 P: (515) 281-5111 F: (515) 282-0502 STATE HISTORICAL ISOCIETY of OWA A Division of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs January 3,2007 Mr. Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner City ofIowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 55240 RE: Bethel A.M.E. Church, Iowa City Dear Mr. Terdalkar, In reviewing the proposed design for the Bethel A.M.E. Church, we wish to underscore our concern the currently proposed addition and changes to the historic building could jeopardize the standing of this building as a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Although our office will not unilaterally recommend the church be de-listed, we recommend the final design avoid such a future possibility. The reasons for our concern are essentially two fold. One, the proposed revisions to the historic church's entrance and interior changes are not in keeping with Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Standard 1 states, "A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment". The front fal(ade and sanctuary are important character defining features. To widen the primary entrance and change the interior sanctuary by infilling a once open space with new walls is not in keeping with Standard 1. We realize the proposal to widen the front door is intended to allow room for a casket with pall bearers to enter into the building. An alternative to allow direct access into the proposed new sanctuary could be designed. Perhaps an ADA compliant ramp could be designed immediately adjacent to the historic church and provide an entrance point at the same first floor level of the new sanctuary. If such a ramp is feasible, the split stairway and wheel-chair lift could be re-designed. Secondly, the proposed addition is so large and so close it appears to overwhelm the historic church building. Standard 9 states, "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize a property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing. size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment". This effect could be lessened to some degree by moving the new addition back and thus creating a greater separation from the historic building and new addition. This separation could create a design opportunity for the transition space between the historic church and the proposed addition. Please feel free to contact our office at any time to further discuss our concerns and to discuss alternative design solutions. Sincerely, ~ JacK C. Porter Preservation C 600 EAST LOCUST STREET. DES MOINES, IA 50319-0290 W: (515) 242-6152 F: (515) 282-0502 TALLGRASS HISTORIANS L.C. 2460 S. Riverside Drive . Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) 354-6722 . fax: (319) 354-7354 January 4,2007 -'11 I (~:":) Tl Board of Adjustment City of Iowa City 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 (Jl RE: Bethel A.M.E. Church - 411 S. Governor Street, Iowa City, Johnson County Members of the Board: I am the historian/architectural historian who authored the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the above-referenced historic church building. I worked on this project in the late 19908 and it culminated in a successful listing in 2000. While this particular nomination was performed pro bono because I grew up in the Longfellow neighborhood and had. a long-standing interest in this building, I also do this type of work professionally all across the state. My firm performs various levels of architectural studies and assessmentsofNRHP eligibility for manydiertts, including federal agencies, the Iowa Department of Transportation, various municipalities, and many large architectural/engineering firms based inside and outside the state of Iowa. Over the last 20 years, I have evaluated the historic integrity and potential historical and/or architectural significance of literally thousands of examples of Iowa architecture, from farmsteads to factories. It was and remains my professional opinion that the Bethel AME Church is a highly significant historic resource within the heart of this city. It is the physical legacy of a very different era of American society, both nationally and locally, and deserves every bit of recognition and protection available to it. The little church is certainly one of a kind in Iowa City and one of only a few, relatively speaking, historically black churches extant in the state. As such, it was very easy to argue for its Nati()nalRegistersignificance, especially since it had changed little in its many decades of service to the local African- American community. While I am heartened at the health of the congregation and its growing membership rolls, I am very concerned about the plans for expansion as presented to the Historic Preservation Comniission in December, 2006. I do think a more modest and sensitive addition can be designed. However, the present plans will leave the building ineligible for continued listing on the National Register. If it had already been remodeled under these plans when I first approached the nomination project, I would never have pursued it. The building's historic integrity would have been too diminished bYl110dern alterations. {) Letter to the Iowa City Board of Acijustment, Re: Bfthel AME Church, 4 January 2007 My main concern is the overwhelming scale of the new addition, which virtually dwarfs the historic church visually from all angles and, in effect, replaces the original church and reduces it to a vestibule for the new addition. The monumental new "church" looming behind the little historic building would certainly represent the success of a growing modem Iowa City AME membership, but also ignore the generations of small groups of worshipers from past decades who struggled just to keep the door open and the building heated. The need for a better visual separation or architectural segue between the new and the old buildings is also critical and not evident in the present design. In general, exterior alterations and details of the new addition should meet the standards and guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior. The City's staff has already quite thoroughly analyzed the plans within these guidelines, I agree with the staff's conclusions completely. Inside the building, my biggest concern is the subdivision of the sanctuary into smaller rooms. Granted the church is not a public building per se, such as a courthouse, but unlike a private home where there is no expectation of public access, this church building has always welcomed a variety of visitors and does have a semi-public character. The essential historic nature of the interior is the sanctuary and the volume of open space it encloses. Partition walls would destroy this essential character. Combined, the massive scale of the planned addition and the reduction of open interior space effectively destroy the historic integrity of the church building.. Its best chances for long-term preservation are not to immediately destroy its integrity, as the present plans would do, nor to render the building obsolete by rejecting all attempts. by the congregation to expand and meet present needs. Rather, some design compromise must be found that results in a more sympathetic and scaled-<iowD. addition that still gives the congregation some room to grow. This expansion project needs to return to the drawing board. Thank you. Sincerely, ?iR~~(()Qw.eft~ If Olive Nash ,-n (..Ii PRELIMINARY MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 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, Richard Carlson, John McCormally, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Gunn STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Poppen, Rob Phipps, Katie Stutson, Ben Taylor RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after seDarate Council action): None PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Appropriateness: 830 Colleqe Street. Terdalkar said the applicant would like to enlarge the existing basement windows on the northwest side of the building and to install egress windows and construct a window well on the south side. Terdalkar explained showed the The applicant, David Poppen, said that as staff has suggested he would like to use a poured cement window well as it would match the look of the existing window well. Ponto wondered about the width of the member between the two new windows and asked what would be appropriate. Terdalkar said that it would be appropriate to match the features on the original windows so the vertical member between the two windows-mullion width should match the original. Poppen said that nothing would change in the bedroom window, the photograph is just being used to show the window he would like to match the northwest window to. Toomey asked Poppen if he is still planning to use vinyl windows and said the guidelines do not allow it. Poppen wondered if he could use vinyl windows and put storm windows around the vinyl. Weitzel said the guidelines specifically disallow vinyl, but the Commission has in the past allowed substitute materials such as fiberglass for basement windows where there is a chance for moisture to rot the wood. Poppen said that he would be agreeable to use fiberglass or metal-clad wood windows as an acceptable compromise. Toomey suggested that for better egress function one should be able to unclip the windows or crank the window. He asked the applicant if they will be removable. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 830 College Street with the conditions that the windows be wood, metal-clad wood, or fiberglass; the jamb thickness to match the original windows; and the foundation be poured. McCormally seconded the motion. Motion carries (9-0). ." m' '.. _ _'_._'_~~."_'~_H'_"_"_"'_'_._'_'""_'___'<__'~___~~,___~,'___~__ Historic Preservation Commission November 21,2006 Page 2 428 Clark Street. Rob Phipps said he is the contractor for the project and is representing Jenny Anger, the owner of the home. Terdalkar said that the property is in the Clark Street Conservation District. He said the applicant intends to construct a 28 feet tall, 22 feet wide, and 26 feet long addition to the back of the home. The application includes the demolition of a small garage addition in the back and the replacement of an existing deck with a new deck that will be part of the new addition. Terdalkar said that the application does not provide information about the type of windows, doors, or materials columns that will be used in the construction. Terdalkar clarified that because of the changing grade technically the height of the existing house would be 26 feet-front facade is 22 feet and the rear facade is approximately 24. Weitzel asked about the staff comments about the use of corner boards on the proposed addition. Terdalkar said that if currently there are no corner boards, then it would not be appropriate to add the corner boards. Weitzel said that the commission should try to distinguish the addition from the original building to maintain the history. Weitzel said that they should try to match the windows and the siding should be fiber cement wood. Phipps said that he did not submit the application, but he would be agreeable to use materials and style features to match the existing house. He said fhat he is sure that the windows would be wood windows. Katie Stutson said that they would use all the materials as approved by the guidelines. Phipps agreed that their intent is to match the addition with the house. Toomey wondered if Phipps was going to be using shingles. Terdalkar said that the application states that they will use cedar shingles. Phipps wondered if they could use Hardiplank cement boards. The commission agreed that was fine. Michaud wondered if the balustrade on the porch will be painted. Mitchell said it will be painted white. Mitchell said that they did not want to bring siding below the lower level finish line and also that the foundation will match the original. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Michaud moved to approve application as submitted with the understanding that the details of the addition would match the existing style of the house and wood or fiber cement board siding is used. McCormally seconded. Carlson wondered about the Longfellow neighborhood guidelines would apply. Weitzel said that section 8.1 lays out specific guidelines for the Longfellow district specifically about the height of the new additions. Terdalkar said that the guidelines say that new additions still need to comply with section 8.1 and as such any the new additions on Clark Street should not be higher than a 2-story building. Weitzel read the section Brennan said that in his opinion when viewed from the street, it would still appear as a 2-story house. Toomey said that the existing height on the rear is already taller than a 2-story house. Michaud agreed. Weitzel said that the ridge line is the same height as the existing ridge line. Therefore, the elevation is not any higher than the existing house but because the lower story is exposed one can see a third story in the back. There could be an argument that there is an existing exposed third story in the back at present. Brennan said that if the commission takes that approach, there already is an existing third story. Ponto agreed with Brennan. Carlson said that he agrees, but he does have a concern because from both the alley and the sidewalk, the addition will be much more massive looking than the existing story. He does not think that the guidelines would prohibit this type of addition, however. Carlson said that the fact that the addition would set back from the existing north facade of the house. Michaud wondered if the depth of the addition is the same depth as the house. Stutson said that it is not much deeper. The depth is the minimum depth they needed to get the two-car garage underneath. Terdalkar said that the stairway and the balcony can still be done while keeping the lower level at 22 feet wide and 22 feet deep. The recessed porch and the stairway can be pushed within that 22 feet and still achieve a similar floor plan that caters to similar space needs. Phipps said that it would be pretty hard to make things smaller and still achieve the purpose of the addition. Terdalkar said that he was thinking that Historic Preservation Commission November 21,2006 Page 3 the stairs could be incorporated on the south side and incorporate the stairs and the recessed porch further back in the footprint. That way it would be visually less imposing. Stutson said that she understands, but if the porch is on the other side, the owners would be sitting on the porch and the view would be of the alley. It would be difficult to make it smaller. Weitzel wondered what the commission thinks. Ponto wondered how important the bedroom balcony is to the homeowners. Stutson said that the homeowners want it very badly. Ponto does not think that it is appropriate that the balustrade protruding the above the roof. Stutson said she could adjust that so that it would not stick above the gambrel. Phipps wondered if fiberglass doors would be acceptable for this project. Weitzel said that the commission has approved fiberglass before. Terdalkar said that the commission would probably have to approve the door. Baker said that the guidelines say that substitute doors would be acceptable as long as they are approved by the commission. The commission agreed that as long as the doors are similar to the existing doors and not incongruent with the guidelines, they will be acceptable. MOTION TO AMENDMENT: Ponto moved to amend the motion that there be staff approval of the east elevation porch involving the balcony railing be adjusted so that it does not overlap with the gambrel. Swaim seconded the motion. The amendment to the main motion carried on a vote of 9-0. MOTION: The motion to accept the plan as submitted with the stipulations and the amendment to the motion, carried on a vote of 9-0. 112 S. Summit Street. Terdalkar said that this home is in the College Hill Conservation District. The application is to remove existing 'Insulbrick' siding, and install fiber cement board siding, replace existing soffits and fascia, and wrap the existing door and window casing/trim with aluminum. Ben Taylor is representing the homeowner. He said the brick porch front is brick and would remain. He said that Shannon, the homeowner, wants to tear off the existing material (soffits, fascia, and wrap) and replace them with moisture infiltration materials. He said that the homeowner is 55 years old and he does not want to paint it anymore, he wants to have it weather-proofed and energy efficient. Shannon wants to go back to the clapboard look, with matching cement fiberboard. He said that the gutters will be removed and the wrapping will be aluminum. He said that the new soffit will actually look more historically accurate than what is presently on the home. Weitzel wanted clarification that they will be using aluminum soffit and not vinyl. Weitzel read the guidelines section 4.3, page 15, "covering original wood siding soffits and eave boards with another material such as vinyl or aluminum siding" is disallowed. Weitzel said that if the commission decides that this is an acceptable substitute, they could allow it. One requirement for approving materials is that a sample be provided. Carlson said that the commission would not necessarily disallow the replacement of the wood. Weitzel said that when you put in aluminum soffits, you generally just cover it up. Taylor wondered if the reason that there is so much aluminum siding in the neighborhood today is that it was grandfathered in, and Weitzel said that was correct. Terdalkar said that the original soffits are on the home on all sides. The only area that does not have the original soffits is on the addition, which never had original soffits. Shannon said that they will leave the original posts and the brick, they would just like to alter the ceiling itself. Terdalkar said that he thinks that the damage can be repaired. He said that the applicant was requested to determine the condition of the wood siding on the original house and they have not done that. Terdalkar said that the applicant wants to remove the 'Insulbrick' and place the siding over the original wood siding, which is not an appropriate technique. Terdalkar said that the applicant needs to Historic Preservation Commission November 21,2006 Page 4 determine the condition of the original siding. Then, the siding could be repaired, or if the damage is too severe, they could replace the siding. The applicant's representative wondered how he could determine the condition of the wood siding without tearing off the 'Insulbrick.' The commission said that he could remove the 'lnsulbrick' without a permit. Michaud wondered if an independent contractor could strategically remove the sidil')g in two or three places to determine the condition of the wood siding underneath. Weitzel said that commission often allowed wood to be removed and repaired or replaced, but the commission needs to know what the condition is underneath. Ponto said that in general if the siding is in decent shape it should be salvaged. McCormally wondered what the likelihood of the siding underneath to be in good condition. Terdalkar said it just depends and there is no way to tell without checking. In some cases, the siding has been covered for 50 years and is still in good condition. McCormally wondered if some of the wood is damaged and some is salvageable, if it could be removed then. Weitzel said that recently, on a home on College Street, the commission allowed the removal of the wood siding because it was damaged so badly. McCormally wondered what the applicant has to show in order for the commission to allow him to replace the wood siding. Weitzel said that they do not have a standard test to determine, the commission makes decisions on a case-by-case basis. Weitzel said that point is moot, because the siding will have to be removed for repairs to be made. Terdalkar said that he has seen three areas on the home where the siding needed to be repaired, but he does not think that those areas are indicative of the condition of the rest of the home. Taylor said that Shannon needs help in making decisions, but that he, himself, would be happy to tear off the siding at this point. Weitzel said that at this point, it would be difficult to allow the wood to be removed without knowing the condition. If the commission had an idea of the condition of the wood, they may be able to allow wholesale removal of the wood, but without that, they cannot make a decision. McCormally suggested tabling the decision until they know the condition of the wood. Ponto said he would prefer that the decision be deferred. Toomey asked why not get a vote on decide. He said he would not support the application because he does not think that any of the work match with the guidelines. MOTION: McCormally moved to table the application until such time that the applicant provides more information about the condition of the wood siding or a revised application. Swaim seconded. Ponto said that he thinks it is a reasonable approach. He said The aluminum siding will not be acceptable, even if there is more information about the condition of the wood. Placing cement board over the clapboard is also not acceptable. The clapboard will need to be removed if it is bad. The applicant's representative said that he does not have a problem with removing the clapboard and replacing it with a pre-finished cement board. He said that he told Shannon that he did not think the removal of the soffit would ever pass. He wondered if there is a certain type of wood that is required. Weitzel said that he thinks the preferred wood is douglas fir. MOTION: Motion to table the application passes on a vote of (9-0). Historic Preservation Commission November 21 , 2006 Page 5 946 Iowa Avenue. This home is located in the College Hill Conservation District. Terdalkar said the application is to replace the existing flat roof with a slightly pitched roof, install an egress size window in the corner on the east side, and reduce the height of the existing window on the north side. Weitzel wanted to clarify that this is no longer considered storm damage repair because these modifications are not related to the storm. Terdalkar said that the applicant would like to increase the height of the roof about 12 inches. The roof will be slightly sloped, with an 8 foot span. The roof will still be well below the window height. Terdalkar does not know the reason that the window height will be reduced. He said that the vyindow on the east side was recently replaced and the applicant wants to replace it with an egress, which will have to be a casement window because egress windows do not come double-hung. Ponto thought that maybe the smaller window is to go in a bathroom. Terdalkar said that he thinks it may be that the homeowner ordered the wrong side window. Michaud thinks that as long as the window is matching at the top, it would be suitable. She wondered why the shed roof is not Ethylene-Propylene-Diene Monomer (EDPM). Terdalkar said that he does not think that the applicant knows that shingles will not work there, as he has mentioned shingles as an option. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation that the lintel level matches the existing window edge and with a recommendation to use a more durable material than shingles. Baker seconded the motion. Carlson says that he thinks that the window to be replaced is bad and must have rotted. He can take the owners' word for the replacement need. Terdalkar said that the window may be prone to more water damage, but that is merely speculation. Weitzel said that the commission has approved many changes to windows and doors on this house. Motion carries on a vote of (9-0). MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 12, 2006 MEETING: Because there were no substantive changes to the minutes, the consensus of the Commission was to file the minutes for the October 12'h meeting. OTHER: Conference on Historic Buildinq Code. One or two commission members could have their way paid by the city. Terdalkar said it would be a useful topic to learn about. Weitzel said that according to Karin Franklin, only landmarks would qualify for building code exceptions. It might be worth investigating this topic further. The conference lasts the entire day. Lunch is included in the registration fee. Weitzel said that he may try to attend the conference. 17 S. Goverrnor. Terdalkar said that the commission sent two memos to the Housing Inspection Services regarding this property. H.I.S. has proceeded to register this building as an abandoned building, which means that the owner has 30 days to register this building as abandoned or vacant. The owner has until October 31, 2006. Terdalkar has received some inquiries about the building. One is from Ms. Gilroy, who is the granddaughter of James Cash, who owned and lived in the building in the 1930s. Ms. Gilroy is interested in looking at the options in terms of restoring the building. Ms. Gilroy is in the process of making a bid to the owner. Historic Preservation Commission November 21, 2006 Page 6 Another inquiry came from Mr. Heman who was interested in purchasing and restoring the building. The owner contacted Terdalkar through their representative, who wants to demolish the building. Terdalkar said that the owner would need to apply for a demolition permit and have it approved through the Historic Preservation Committee. McCormally wondered about the current structural integrity of the building. Weitzel said that he spoke to people who toured the building and they said it was in good condition. Weitzel said that a lot of the windows have been broken for many years. Terdalkar had a consultant, Renaissance Restoration, said that they feel pretty confident that the building can be restored. Terdalkar said that Ms. Gilroy was visiting friends in Iowa City and spotted her grandfather's old house. She has restored a home before. McCormally wondered what the authority of the HPC is to prevent the building from being demolished. The commission can deny the permit, but they cannot force the owner to sell the property or have any input on whom the property is sold to. Terdalkar said that the owner is considering the sale of the property, and that the property is on the market at present. The owner is also considering demolition to sell the property without the structure. 519 Summit St. The commission previously approved an addition in the back. The commission suggested creating a gable in the back. He submitted a solution proposal and Terdalkar is unsure about approving the submission. Terdalkar gave the proposal to the commission to look it over. Weitzel approves of the design. Terdalkar said that there will be a 12 foot addition with the gable roof. Terdalkar does not like the proposal from the side elevation. He thinks that the gable should be a gable dormer. Weitzel said that he can see Terdalker's point, but thinks that the commission was unclear in their suggestions to the owner. Ponto thinks that the submission is acceptable, but thinks that Terdalkar's suggestion will look much better. Terdalkar on vacation. Terdalkar wonders if it is all right with the commission if they cancel the December meeting, as he will be on vacation. Terdalkar reminded everyone about the Annual Historic Preservation Awards and that the ceremony will be held on December 6, starting at 5.30 PM in Old Brick Church. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Minutes submitted by Abby Attoun = " ... r.fJ r.fJ 's e~ " . u 8 = ~ ,,~ ... ~ ~ '""'~:> ~ =:> E: ~ M ~~ r.fJ = ~ ~ .,"", Q,.'"'" ~< ... . " '"'" r.fJ = .... I LU I I I I I !:::! >< >< >< >< >< .... I 0 I I I I I .... I I I I I I N LU I I I LU LU I I I .... >< >< >< (;) - - - 0 I I I 0 0 I I I .... I I I I I I co I LU I I I I LU I N >< >< >< c;; I 0 I I I I 0 I 0 I I I I I I ..,. LU I I I I I I .... >< >< >< 0 I >< c;; - 0 I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I 0 LU LU I I I I I I I .... >< >< 00 - - 0 0 I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I r-. LU I I I I I I I N >< >< >< - - r-. 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 r-. I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I N I I I I I LU 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 II) I LU I I I I I I LU N >< >< >< >< >< >< - - II) I I I I I 0 I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I .... I LU I I I I I I I I .... >< >< >< - - II) I 0 I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I ..,. I I I I I I I I I 52 >< >< >< >< II) I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I r-. I I I I I I I I I N >< >< >< >< ~ I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I M I 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 LU LU I I I I I .... I >< >< >< >< - - - M I 0 0 I I I I I 0 I I I I I I N I LU LU I I I I I N I >< >< >< >< >< - - - N I 0 0 I I I I I 0 I I I I I I S!? 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 en 0> co r-. ~ ...... co ~ co 0> ...... ...... 0> 0> 0> CD co E ~ Q Q 0 Q Q Q Q 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q - 0; "- .- 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> ala. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I- x W (") (") (") (") (") (") (") (") (") (") (") (") (") (") (") (") .. c ~ al "- E a. nl ~ C iij 0 E nl C ~ .= E "0 ~ i >- E c 0 iij j E CIl Gi .. 1/1 8 c nl 0 nl CIl .s E 1/1 l:l ~ c ~ c .c () () .c 'E .c '; 1/1 Q,) e j nl U U C 0 ~ ~ E nl nl C u i nl 0 U 0 !Xl !Xl () W C) ::E ::E ::E 0.. 0.. en en I- ro u.i ::IE 0:: ::IE ::IE ::IE 0.: ::IE ci ...= ...= z -; -; -; -; -; "'C Q,) .. ~ Q,) U 0'1.0 X c: E UJ:pQ,) ~Q,):::i: c: Q,) 'E'EQ,):::i:ro Q,) III .... 1Il51:9oo ~.o........zz a. <( II II II ~II 1I~:::i: ::::c::xooz MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14,2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: John McCormally STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Jim Buxton, Bryan Clark, Jeff Clark, Curt Dyer, Orlando Dial, Tim Hasdall, Bruce McNichol, Harvey Miller, Jeff Nerad, Diana Pinney, John Roffman, Matthew Roffman, Melvin Shaw, Richard Wayne CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. STATEMENT OF PROCEDURES: Weitzel read a statement detailing the Commission's meeting procedures. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: 921 Burlinqton Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. He stated that this is a Craftsman Style house, and the application is to reduce the length of the rafter tail on each side of the roof and reinstall the gutters and reinstall the feature that is on the rafter tail. Terdalkar said the applicant would replace a portion of the rafter tail with new wood rafter tails, but it will be a reduction in length of about six inches. He said that the application would include some residing work on the back of the property where there is some damage to a small addition, with material to match the original. McNichol, the contractor for the project, said that the ends were never protected, and everyone of them is pretty well deteriorated. He said they are rotting all the way around. McNichol said that really the only solution is to cut them off, move the architectural feature on the bottom of the joist back, and then redo the gutters so that they will cover those joists. He said the work in the back involves a shed that was probably a porch at one time that was closed in. McNichol said he would try to fix as much of it as he can, including closing up the second floor. Terdalkar said he was not certain if the gutters were put in as a feature of the house. He said that it was common to not have gutters on such houses, because water would run off, and the grade would be such that the water would run away from the foundation. Terdalkar said that he has seen. many examples of this on Craftsman houses in Iowa City. Terdalkar said that the place where the downspouts are attached to the gutter is very close to the rafter tail that is on the fascia. He said that on other houses, the downspout is connected further away from the end rafter, so the water is directed away from the end rafter. Terdalkar said another issue could be that lack of maintenance on the gutters is clogging up the water and causing damage. He said that one solution might be to cap the rafter tails with metal and not reduce the length of them. Terdalkar said that long rafter tails are a typical feature of a Craftsman house. McNichol said that about 30% of them have been replaced, some not very well. He said that this is a rental property and has not received a lot of maintenance. Carlson asked if what would be seen visually is that the gutter would be in the same place, but the rafters would be shorter. McNichol said that is correct, and then the guttering would be wider to pick up those joists. Carlson asked if the guttering then still would not be adjacent to the new, shorter rafters - if there Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 2 would be a gap between them. McNichol said that no, it will be out at the length; it'll include the length of the new rafters. Carlson asked if this involves reducing both the exposed rafter tails all along the edge, as well as the decorative one. McNichol said that the decorative piece would move back; it would just go back six inches. He said that it would still look the same and still have that architectural feature, but the joist would be shorter. Weitzel pointed out that the guidelines recommend elimination of moisture problems such as leaky roofs, gutters, and downspouts; maintaining clean gutters and downspouts; and periodic monitoring for signs of water damage, necessary to ensure the long life of the wood. He said that also disallowed is removal of historic wood elements such as trimmed porches, cornices, and decorative elements. Ponto said he feels that the decorative element is an important feature of this house. He said he does not have a strong feeling about it being moved back six inches or extending beyond the roofline. Terdalkar said that it is not just the one piece that is decorative but is the whole rafter length that is decorative on this house. Gunn asked what the current overhang is, the length of the rafter tails. McNichol said that it is about six inches beyond the edge of the roof. He said that the overhang itself is probably close to three feet. Ponto said that another change in appearance, if it is allowed to cut this short and have the gutter extended, from an elevation, is that one would actually see the end of the gutter. He said that now, the gutter is kind of hidden behind the decorative element. Weitzel said the house probably did not have a gutter when it was originally built. Toomey said he thought this was probably intentionally made to this length originally as an architectural detail. Brennan asked how one would go about repairing that. Toomey said that it could be bonded and sanded and repaired. Weitzel added that he has seen those done with a scarf joint, basically just a 45 angle cut. Gunn asked if originally the rafter length was probably out to the length of the detail board on the outside, and they were cut back in order to put the gutters on. Terdalkar said he believed that is what happened. Gunn asked if there is rot behind the fascia board. McNichol said he did not know how far back the rot is. He said that the cut off solution is obviously the quickest solution, but some joinery would take a little more time. McNichol said that he hopes the rot is not worse. Michaud said that at this point, McNichol doesn't plan to replace those but just plans to trim them. McNichol said that he would like to just cut them off and move the architectural feature back up. Gunn said that he is not crazy about cutting rafters off further, because they're already probably shorter than original. He said that he is not opposed to cutting back that board that sticks out beyond where it probably did originally anyway. Gunn said it is a funny-looking detail to have that fascia board hanging out six or seven inches. He wondered if there is a way to leave the rafter length the same. McNichol said that he is just taking off the end pieces. He added that some of the fascia boards on the shorter ones aren't there, and he would make it all consistent. Gunn said he is not opposed to trimming those fascia boards back to the existing rafter lines. He said that the overhang on that house seems plenty long. Gunn said that if the trim boards were trimmed back, no one would ever think there was anything out of line with it. He said the application refers to cutting off the exposed rafter tails. McNichol said that it would be just the ends. Weitzel said that should be clarified in the motion. Michaud said the applicant is referring to fascia tails. Toomey said that it is really a fascia rafter. Weitzel said one would assume that at one point, all of the rafter tails extended that far, but they no longer do. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 921 Burlington Street as submitted, clarifying that the fascia rafter can be trimmed back to meet the existing rafter length but no shortening of the rafter should occur. Ponto seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 3 Carlson said that without a compelling reason to move an architectural feature of this building, which changes the appearance, he would not want to change the overall visual appearance of the building. He said he does see a compelling reason to repair what is there and fix the gutters so that they don't continue to damage the existing material or the replacement material. Swaim agreed. She said that it will alter the appearance in a hurtful way. She said trat there is a lot of elegance to the way this was designed, even though some of the rafters were cut back anyway. Carlson said that at least from certain angles on the street, one wouldn't even see that, because they are hidden by the extension. He said that if the extensions are moved back, then one would see the gutter more readily. Terdalkar said that it would be all the way to the back side of the gutter, at least six inches. Michaud asked if it would work to cut it straight down from the edge of the gutter so that it would still conceal the gutter but be less of a maintenance concern. McNichol said that they were not capped and so have deteriorated all the way back to the roof. Weitzel said the intent of shortening was to get that away from where the splash is from the gutter. Swaim asked if, when this was originally designed to extend with water going over the edge without a gutter, that worked. Terdalkar said it would work if the ground sloped away. He said that because there is so much paving there now, it may not work as properly today. Terdalkar said that the situation today may not be compatible with not having gutters. Ponto said he would probably vote against the motion, because it would be better to maintain the original design, since that does help hide the gutter. Toomey said that this would change th~ overall appearance, because the intent of the architect was to have that pronouncement there. Ponto said that capping this might prolong the life of this. Weitzel stated that if one is voting in favor of the motion, it is probably not necessary to state why. He said if someone is voting against the motion, that is time to make one's point known. The motion failed on a vote of 1-7. with Gunn votinQ in favor. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 921 Burlington Street with the stipulation that the original trim be repaired in its existing configuration. Toomey seconded the motion. Swaim said that since the tails aren't out there all the way, the existing configuration is in question. Weitzel responded that the rafter tails would be left where they are, both the fascia tail and the other tails, so the repairs would have to be made to the outward ones, the ones on the ends only. Toomey said his intent was that any that are addressed would be repaired back to the original design state. Weitzel said that the bulk of the rafters would not be changed; there would be no alteration of the current appearance. He said therefore rafter tails that may have been cut off would remain cut off; those that have not yet been cut off would be left at that length, once completed. Toomey said that if some have already been cut off, they need to be repaired. He said those repairs should not be to repair them to the state they are in now but to repair them to the original design state. Terdalkar said the application is to repair or reduce the length of the end rafters, which are the fascia rafters. He said there would not be work done on the individual internal rafters. McNichol said it would be strictly the end rafters, unless the internal rafters are split or broken. Terdalkar said the motion was to repair the end fascia rafters. Weitzel said the motion was not to say the other rafters cannot be repaired, they would just not need to be extended to their original length, if that is how they existed. Michaud asked about the two on the porch facing the street and if they should be restored. Weitzel said the motion was to restore, not repair, those. Gunn said the intention of the motion was that the outside fascia rafters will be restored to their original configuration, and the ones that are already cut off in between can stay cut off in between where the Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 4 gutter is mounted. He said if it's rotted back six inches, then it would have to be cut back far enough to piece in a replacement to go out to where it was originally. Gunn said the motion was to restore the fascia rafters to match the original configuration. He added that if one happens to be cut off by four inches when it's repaired, it gets longer by four inches. Weitzel said the middle rafters would stay like they are. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Terdalkar suggested that the rafter ends be capped to protect them from the water. McNichol said that he would have to do that. 701 East Colleae Street. Terdalkar said this is a key-contributing structure in the College Green Historic District. He said the application is to replace the existing railing on a part of the building that is sort of a breezeway between the garage and the original house. Terdalkar said the project i~ in process so that it is partially completed. He said the applicant reports that the previous railing was storm damaged and needed to be replaced. Weitzel said that, based on the photographs in the application, there are two different styles of newel posts. He said he felt that the preferred style would be more like the lower one on the second page with more of the Gothic arch. McNichol, the contractor for this project, said that this was damaged in the tornado, and one of the owners wanted him to use spindles. He said that this is actually a rubber covered roof that is over the breezeway. McNichol said that to change the posts, he sleeved them - he made bigger posts and kept them up so the water wouldn't wick up into them. McNichol said he then brought them up about 36 inches, and actually the total is almost 38 inches with the architectural feature on the top, and then carried it around. He said the original height of this was around 30 inches, and now it is up to almost 33 inches to the top of the cap railing. McNichol said that he has carried it all the way around into the existing roof of the garage again. He said the height of the current railing is about 33 inches. McNichol said the height of the posts is about 36 inches and more where the architectural feature is. Terdalkar asked if they would be acceptable for the code. McNichol said he hoped so but was more than willing to talk to them. He said that he thinks it looks great, and if the rail were higher, it would lose some of the feature of it. McNichol said the fact that the post is higher is a strong vertical line, and the gothic feature of the house is picked up by the architectural piece on the top. Regarding the spindles, McNichol said he thought he might have done it in a simpler way himself, but when he looked at it, it really has kind of an airy look to it - it doesn't have a heavy mass look as in the posts. He said he thinks it fits the house well. Weitzel said the motion should specify that this needs to be subject to HIS approval, and if HIS disapproves, it would need to be reviewed again. McNichol said he can raise the rail almost three more inches if he has to, but he thinks it will ruin the look of it. Weitzel said he looked through Andreas Atlas and looked at a lot of these things, and they usually show up on front porches or porticoes, but they almost always match the style of the house. He said that because this is a gothic revival house with some Queen Anne influence, that airy look is perfectly in keeping with the house. Weitzel said that if this application does have to come back, sometimes an extra rail is put on the top. Toomey said there is also code on the spacing, spindles, and the areas underneath. Weitzel said that spacing, the space below, thickness of the spindle, and the height are all code considerations. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 701 East College Street, as proposed, subject to HIS approval of the project. Swaim seconded the motion. Ponto said he has seen some railings on second story porches that have been square, simple railings, but he agreed that this gives more of an airy appearance and he thinks it is okay. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 5 Carlson said he didn't realize until he took a closer look at the house that it did actually have Queen Anne elements to it. He said that because this is over what is clearly a modern breezeway, there is no mistaking this for some historic feature, so one is not creating a false sense of history by putting this in. McNichol said in tying it back into the roof, this ties together the garage and the house. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 17 South Governor. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said the application is to install metal clad windows. Terdalkar said this house is storm damaged, and most of the windows no longer exist. Terdalkar said the only concern raised in the staff report was the profile of the windQw sashes and that it should match the historic windows and should be more traditional than the very thin sash. He said that the metal clad windows tend to have a thinner sash profile, and a traditional sash would have at least a two-inch wide sash on the side, and the bottom rail would actually be about three to four inches wide. Terdalkar said that should be maintained when replacing the windows on this house. Jeff Clark said there are some questions about whether replacement would be the right method to use on the house. He said that the storm tore up a lot of the windows, frames and everything, and he has been discussing going with a complete replacement. Clark said he has been considering still putting in a metal clad window, but it would be sealed and highly efficient. He said he wants to do this right and make the inside efficient and make it nice from the inside and outside. Clark said that he would like to use an Andersen window or a JELD-WEN window. He provided examples of the type of window he would like to use. Clark said there would be a couple of windows in there - some double hung - and on the top floor, he would have to switch out the majority of the top floor windows to egress windows, so there would probably be a casement window with the cross muntin to look like a double hung window. Clark said there are a couple of small windows that face north that he may have to use replacements for because of the way they are. He said everywhere else he should be able to remov~ the trim and either reuse the trim or replace it with the same look. Regarding the top windows, Clark said he could put an egress casement there and replace the window to the left with a small double hung to keep it the way it is. He said it would be difficult to modify that and center a window or center two windows back in there and make them look the same. Clark said the top one with the air conditioner in there, he could probably take out and will probably have to center a casement in there, because each one of those sides is too small to make an egress casement. He said that to do it right, he will have to take out the window, put an egress casement in there with a muntin, and then side back to it. Terdalkar said those details should be in the application so that the Commission can look at the project as a whole. Weitzel said he sees this as basically double hung windows without a lot of decoration. Clark confirmed this. Weitzel said there is no divided light and no remaining stained glass elements that are unique and original. He said that as long as this has a window that has a profile that matches a historic profile, that should be okay. Weitzel said one way to do that would be to have the applicant work that out with staff, or alternatively, have the Commission pick a style right now. Michaud asked if there had been a large picture window here of the type that usually has a transom on top. Terdalkar said he did not believe there was a picture window here; he thought t.hey were all paired windows. Weitzel said that some of these large windows would often have windows or a double window with a transom over the top. Clark said the problem he would have with that is that he has to have egress windows for all bedrooms so that he will need 5.7 square feet. He said he therefore will have to elongate some of them. Clark said that putting two windows together is about 32 inches wide, which makes them a lot taller. He said that putting a transom up there would not meet egress. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 6 Michaud said that the windows she is thinking of are usually four or five feet wide and are usually in the living room, rather than a bedroom. She said they are more key to the street-facing elevation. Michaud said the windows are boarded up right now so that it's hard to tell what was there. She suggested they be rebuilt, because they would not be bedroom windows. Terdalkar said that from his knowledge, he did not believe there were any picture windows here. He said he had a photograph of the house from the 1900s that he would check. Michaud said her only concern is whether there was a transom window, which she felt could be determined from the inside. Weitzel said the Commission could propose that Terdalkar visit the building, and if there is a transom and another alternative for egress to meet HIS approval, then require that the transom be restored. Clark said that would be fine with him, assuming that stained glass would not be required. He ?aid he would like to get the windows back in and have the house closed back up. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 17 South Governor Street as proposed, with the stipulations that the applicant work with Terdalkar to find an appropriate window with the correct historic profile, that staff and the applicant walk through the property to make certain each room has proper egress, and that if there are fixed-pane windows and evidence of a transom, that the transom be restored to its pre-tornado appearance. Gunn seconded the motion. Carlson said it appears that most if not all of the window sashes will be replaced and possibly the whole casing around it as well. Clark confirmed this. Carlson asked if modern windows will fit in exactly to the openings that are there now. Clark said they would be very close. He said he could work with Terdalkar to make them as close as he can. Clark said he doubted that he could get one to fit perfectly but would maintain the trim dimensions that are required in the historic booklet and will do what he needs to keep the house looking historic. He said he would try to get the closest window to the size but will also have to meet egress and would work with Terdalkar on that. Swaim said that she was glad to see this house being worked on. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Terdalkar said that Clark mentioned that there would be size changes for egress. He suggested that Clark provide all the information needed regarding which windows need to be resized, what the resulting sizes would be, and whether they would be casements or double hungs. Terdalkar said that information should be specified in the application, as the approval was to restore as applied. Weitzel said the easiest way to deal with that would be to come back for the egress windows. He said the approval will allow replacement of everything up to the point of where egress windows are required, and if the egress window doesn't change the size of the window, then there is no problem. Weitzel said Terdalkar is stating that if the egress window is going to radically change the size of the window opening, that would require approval. Terdalkar said that if some of the paired windows are to be changed to single windows or vice versa, the Commission will need to know that. Clark asked if there were a way to have a motion for Terdalkar to approve or disapprove of the top floor windows. He said then he would not need to come back before the Commission. Weitzel said he felt there would be a lot of back and forth, which may be the best way to handle this. He said that right now, Clark is not certain which windows to specify. Weitzel said he would recommend that be followed. Toomey said the motion does include having the replacement approved by Terdalkar. Terdalkar asked if that was for the sash only or the whole project. Weitzel said the consensus of the Commission seems to be that Terdalkar should have that power. Terdalkar said he wants to be able to write it on the certificate in a way that makes sense for the housing inspectors. Clark asked if he could work directly with Terdalkar on the rest of the project. Weitzel confirmed this. 922 East Washinqton Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said the application is to rebuild a porch that was heavily damaged and subsequently demolished and for approval of square columns instead of round, classical columns on the Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 7 porch, which would be a change from what the original porch would have been. Terdalkar said the applicant also requests approval for demolition of the garage at the rear of the property. Jeff Clark said that the front porch was taken off by the tornado. He said he would like to use square columns and square spindles on the house, because this is a rental property and the round spindles don't seem to last as long. Clark said he thought that had square spindles, although not square columns, before the tornado. Regarding the garage in back, Clark said the garage leans and was torn up somewhat in the tornado. He said the back of the roof was torn off, and there is not really a use for it any more. Michaud asked if Clark would be reconstructing the porch to its original footprint, including the gazebo end to it. Clark said that is correct, with the exception of changing the round columns to square columns. Michaud said that Terdalkar had suggested using fiberglass round columns to go back to the original. Clark said he could not find round, wood columns and was under the impression that he could not use a synthetic product. Weitzel said the Commission has approved fiberglass columns, because they are paintable. Clark said that would be acceptable to him. Weitzel said it is a compromise material, because there are a lot of column shapes available in fiberglass that aren't readily available or that cost a whole lot in wood. Terdalkar said that, looking at the height of the deck, he did not think that spindles would be required. Clark agreed and said it is not over 30 inches. Weitzel said that a balustrade would then not be needed at all. He added that a lot of porches did not have balustrades, especially at that low grade. Clark said that even if not required, this would still sit 24 inches off the ground, and he would rather have someone use the stairs instead of tripping off this. He said that 30 inches requires a guardrail, and this is about 24 inches. Weitzel stated he thinks if Clark wants to install a railing to avoid potential problems, that is his right. He pointed out that this is a conservation district, and there was a balustrade here before the storm. Weitzel said that if Clark wants to restore one, he is probably within his rights to do so. Gunn asked if that was original. Weitzel said it looks like it could have been, or it could have been built in the 1940s. He said the proposal looks like it would be an acceptable replacement for what was there. Toomey said that this should be more of an option; Clark should not have to replace the balusters. Brennan asked if the square spindles and columns would be historically inappropriate, regardless of what was on the house before. Weitzel said that they probably would have been round. Carlson stated that this is a conservation district, and there is an exception for new balustrades and handrails. Weitzel said it would be more appropriate to have round. Carlson said the exception for new ones .states that turned spindles would be most consistent with the architectural style, but installing square spindles is possible. He said that if the Commission considers this a new balustrade, it would be fine; if the Commission considers it a replacement or restoration, then there would be the issue of whether this should be like it was before. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the porch replacement, with painted wood, at 922 East Washington Street, as proposed, using wood or fiberglass round posts, and balustrades at the discretion of the owner. Swaim seconded the motion. Gunn said the application refers to treated pine wood and asked if it would be painted. Clark stated that it would be painted white. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Regarding the garage demolition, Swaim asked if the garage was wide enough to fit a car. Clark said it might be; he said it is very tight and short, although the doors do open. Toomey said the garage is not as old as the house. Weitzel said the garage was possibly built in the 1920s or the 1910s. Baker said that she had a similar garage that was built in the 1930s. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 8 Weitzel asked about the structural defects of the garage. Clark replied that it is leaning two to three inches more than it was before the storm. He said that the back roof was ripped up, and the fascia and gutters were ripped off the side. Clark said that he did not know that it could be used for a car, as it is basically unsafe. Carlson asked if the garage is off its foundation. Clark confirmed this and said that it is twisted and is leaning. Terdalkar said that the fascia is lost, and there is some damage on the ridge plate. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of a garage at 922 East Washington Street. Ponto seconded the motion. Carlson said that the Commission is supposed to consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance, if approving demolition. He said that the integrity is very high - it looks like it did when it was built in the 30s or 40s. Carlson said that the condition is not great but not so bad as to be unsalvageable. He said that in the absence of evidence, he would not want to say that it is unsalvageable. Regarding the architectural significance, Carlson said that this is a small outbuilding, but they are becoming increasingly rare. He said there is not a lot to this garage, and it was probably built several decades after the house was built. Carlson said he was loathe to see this demolished, just because it is of an increasingly rare type, and he was not convinced that it could not be salvaged and at least made into a one-car garage. Baker agreed that it would be a shame to lose this garage. Brennan stated that guideline seven says that demolition will be denied unless the applicant can demonstrate the building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. He said he does not see either of those evidenced. Carlson said that refers to a primary building. He said the demolition of outbuildings on contributing or non-contributing properties shall be approved on a case-by-case basis. Swaim asked if there is still a driveway that goes to the garage. Clark said there is a driveway, but it does not go directly to the garage. Brennan pointed out that the garage could be used by renters or rented out as a storage shed. Clark said that the building is leaning and isn't going to get any better. He added that he did not want to put a lot of money into the building. Michaud said that it could be straightened up with a come-along without too much expense. Clark said he understands that there is a use for this if it could be rented and that it has a value. He said, however, that the building is leaning and will need other work. Clark said he has not even inspected the interior, and that it is not something he would really want to repair. Gunn said that he agreed with Carlson in the evaluation of the building but said that one could almost flip a coin on this. Gunn said the condition isn't great, the integrity is good, and the architectural significance is questionable. He said he would tend to side with the applicant, because he did not know that it would be worth a heroic effort to save the building. Ponto agreed that these buildings are becoming rarer, but on a case-by-case basis, this garage does not have any unique significance. Swaim said that because there has been this damage to the building and that getting this back on its foundation would be for limited use, she felt it could be demolished without a great loss. She suggested that the doors be salvaged. Weitzel said that he usually votes against demolition and would stay with that in this case. The motion carried on a vote of 5-4. with Baker. Brennan. Carlson. and Gunn votina no. 946 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar stated that this building was approved for siding replacement a few months ago. He said that in the process of doing that, the applicants discovered a feature on all sides of the house that replicates a pilaster feature on all corners of the house. Terdalkar said that the applicant is requesting approval of the use of a material called AC plywood to create this feature. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 9 Terdalkar said the applicant is also requesting approval of the installation of two metal-covered doors. He said that one would be on the second floor of the front fa<;ade balcony, and one would be on the entryway to the basement on the east fa<;ade. Curt, the contractor for the project, said that on those corners, there is 2-inch five-quarter board on the side, and then it goes over 9 to another 2-inch five-quarter board. He said that this is just what fits in the middle there, and it was a half inch. Curt said then there is trim that embosses it. He said that instead of taking the board and milling it down, it is the same thing as AC plywood. Weitzel said that is exterior rated plywood. Curt confirmed this. Buxton, the owner of the property, said that it will all be painted. He said that no one will know the difference between one material and the other, and it is a substantial cost savings to use the AC. Gunn asked what the Miratech composite material is. Weitzel said it is the particle board with the synthetic resin that Gunn had taken home and tried out. Buxton said it is particle board so that it is not as sturdy and breaks down with water. Gunn said that if Miratech is the material that he tested by alternately freezing and thawing it, it didn't take on any water. He said he would be comfortable with that and suspected it would last as long as AC plywood. Gunn said he is not against the plywood but just feels that that the Miratech is a good product. Carlson asked why the original trim was removed to begin with and why the pilaster-type things were removed. Buxton said they were filled with a bunch of nail holes, because they were sided over. Carlson said he was asking about the whole pilaster. Curt said that they want the board in the middle to be half-inch plywood. Carlson said that the guidelines call for original trim to be retained when possible. Curt said there were about 50,000 nail holes in the thing. Buxton said that it was full of nail holes, was over 150 years old, and would not hold paint. He said he would like to use new that looks exactly like the original. Buxton said it would be much nicer looking and a better product. Weitzel said the issue is that the owner should have applied for a building permit before it was removed. Weitzel said the main point is that it is gone now, so it will have to be replaced. He asked what material the Commission would like to see it replaced with. Weitzel added that the doors have to be considered and said they would be metal and could be painted. Terdalkar said that the pattern would be different, in that they would have a double hung window with a half light, and the panels are vertical instead of horizontal. Carlson said that he did not know of any historic window with a double hung window in it; it is always one large light in that type of door if there is a window. Weitzel said also that the panels are usually vertical but pointed out that this is in a conservation district. Gunn said the only issue seems to be the double hung light. Curt said that if he uses the proposed door, he wouldn't need a storm door. Ponto said that the guidelines say that the style should be of a historic door style. Gunn said that this isn't a historic light style, although the door itself is appropriate. Carlson said that then basically the effect of that would be like asking to put a storm door or screen door on as well, if they want the option of a screen for ventilation. Michaud said that the single-light door is more commonly available. Ponto said that the owner wants the double hung window in the door for ventilation. Terdalkar said that there are many windows on both facades for ventilation. Curt said that there is no ventilation in the basement. He said there is one common window well and two in the bedrooms but no other windows in the basement. Curt said that the basement door goes only to the below ground apartment. Swaim stated that since there is less of a need for ventilation on the second floor where there are other windows, one could fix the old door or put on a door that only has one light there, and use the new door with the double hung window on the basement. Buxton said that the current door on the second floor is in pretty bad shape, and a new one would have a double pane of glass. Swaim suggested the new door on the second floor have a single light. Curt said that would be fine. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 10 Gunn said that Carlson had said that he would expect to see vertical panels and not horizontal panels even on the balcony. Carlson said he was not certain if the current door is original, as this building was probably built in the early 20th century. Weitzel said that the overall integrity of this building is quite altered. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 946 Iowa Avenue as proposed, with the stipulation that the balcony door have a single, fixed upper light. Buxton asked, if he went that route, if he could use a storm door with a screen. Gun,n and Weitzel agreed that would be appropriate. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Buxton said that for the garage on this property, he is considering replacing the siding with the siding he is using on the house. He asked what the general feeling of the Commission would be about that. Weitzel suggested that Buxton discuss with Terdalkar what the guidelines recommend and what the Commission has approved in the past. 942 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. He stated that the request is for approval to change the railing on the existing porches - one is on the northeast corner and one is on the southwest corner of the house. Terdalkar showed an old photograph of the porch as it was originally and stated that it now has a fixed panel balustrade. He said that the railing would be installed on the front porch. Curt said that he just wants to do a two by four railing there. Michaud said that the porch used to be wrapped around and L-shaped; therefore it has lost a considerable amount of elegance. She said that because this is a conservation district, the Commission would not require that the porch be built back to its original 1890 state. Michaud sai~ that since this is under 18 inches, a balustrade would not be necessary, and it might even look a little cleaner not to have the balustrade since the L-shape is gone. Terdalkar said that because the grade is not available for about five to six feet, the owner will be required to install a railing on the west side. Weitzel said that in any event, the Commission cannot require that the whole porch be restored at this time. Carlson said that he did not know of any instance historically of two by fours being used as spindles. Curt said that he could go with the two by fours with two by twos. Gunn asked if it would be two by four top and bottom rails with two by two spindles. Curt confirmed this. Gunn said that would be consistent with the guidelines, and Carlson agreed it would be better. Gunn asked if the approval was only for handrails. Carlson said there are two different handrails. Curt said that the side deck has plywood on both sides of two by fours and is enclosed and completely rotted. He said he just needs to do the two by fours with a two by two railing. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 942 Iowa Avenue for handrails to be of two by four bottom and top handrails and base rails with two by two square spindles with height and spacing according to the building code. Curt asked if he could run a post up into the middle there where it is sagging down about three inches. Gunn said that putting in a different post than the one that is there would make it look funny. He said that a seven to eight foot span should be fixable. Weitzel agreed that it should be reparable. Terdalkar said that the porch is in its original condition, and if something can be repaired, it should be done, but not by putting in a structural addition. Gunn said that inside or outside, there has to be a way to get some support on that header somehow. Ponto seconded the motion. Weitzel said the application does not include the porch roof, except for repair, which would not require a permit. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 11 Swaim said that it was earlier discussed that the front porch have a balustrade on the west side but not on the front, that it wasn't needed on the front and might be more attractive without it. Weitzel said the motion calls for the project to be as stated in the application with regard to that, so as in the past, if the Commission approves a certificate that way, the applicant doesn't have to build something that wasn't there. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 911 East Washinqton. Terdalkar stated that this application is for a contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said the applicant has replaced a window on the east facade with a smaller window. Terdalkar said the previous window was a double hung window, and the newly installed window is a casement window with a mullion to create the appearance of a double hung. Terdalkar said that because the new window is smaller, it has created a gap that the applicant says will be filled with all trim. He added that the new window is a metal clad wood window. John Roffman, the owner of this property, said that this project involved the conversion of a bathroom to a bedroom, which requires an egress window. He said he has not yet put trim around.the outside and may need to add a piece of siding or two across the bottom to put the trim around like the other windows. Carlson asked if there is a reason the new window can't be the same size as the old window. Roffman said that was as close as he could come in that casement window, because this was previously a small double hung window in a bathroom. Ponto asked if the intention is to have the trim around the outside be the same trim size. Roffman confirmed that it would be just like the other windows to the right. Brennan asked if there was a building permit for the interior work. Roffman confirmed this and said it was noted on the permit that there would need to be an egress window because of the change in use of the room. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 911 East Washington, provided that the window is trimmed to match the other windows on the elevation. Swaim seconded the motion. Carlson asked about the horizontal bar. Weitzel said that the windows on the right don't have it - they don't have the sill. Toomey asked how it fits with the top board. He said the other windows are going right up to the frieze board. Weitzel said there is a little bit of trim on the other windows, and this one should be done to match. Roffman agreed. Carlson mentioned the horizontal muntin bar that is applied to the casement window to make it look like a double hung. He said that right now it looks like it's just on the interior, not on the exterior, so it doesn't look like a double hung on the exterior. Matthew Roffman said that it is in between the two panes. Carlson said the guidelines state that it should be applied to both sides. Weitzel said that if the Commission had seen this beforehand, it might have recommended a double hung egress window that fit the opening, but the Building Department gave a permit for this without bringing this to the Commission. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 411 South Governor Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a key-contributing structure in the Governor/Lucas Conservation District and is on the National Register of Historic Places. He said the application is for the construction of a new building on the site. Terdalkar said the new building would be approximately 29 feet wide and 70 feet long and would be constructed behind the existing structure, which is approximately 20 feet wide and 30 feet long. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 12 Terdalkar said because of zoning restrictions and requirements including parking and setbacks, it would not be possible build such a building on the property. Terdalkar said that the lot is only about 40 feet wide, and the required setbacks would have made it impossible to construct the building. He stated that the applicant is requesting approval for certain modifications and waivers from the dimensional or site development standards, according to Code, if the structure is on the National Register, is a local landmark, or is part of a City historic district. Terdalkar said the Commission is charged with the duty to consider the application, whether it is appropriate to build the proposed structure that would be compatible with the historic structure and maintain the integrity of the original structure on the site and whether a certificate of appropriateness can be issued in order for the applicant to receive a special exception. He said that because this is a National Register property and the Commission does not have clearly stated standards for a non-residential building in its guidelines, the Commission is referred to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation. Terdalkar said that the first relevant standard is that the property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimum change of the defining characterisfics of the building and its environment. Secondly, he said that the historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved. Terdalkar read that removal of historic materials, alterations, features, and spaces that characterize the property shall be avoided. Terdalkar said the third applicable standard is that each property shall be recognized first as a physical record of its time, place and use. He read further that changes that create a false sense of historic development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings shall not be undertaken. Terdalkar read from number nine of the Secretary of the Interior Standards that exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy the historic material that characterizes the property. He read that the new work should be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Terdalkar referred to the Sanborn Map and City aerial map in the packet to show the context of this historic property. He said the Sanborn Map (date unknown, possibly c. 1930) shows that the lot was originally 80 by 150. Terdalkar said the Sanborn Map shows multiple structures on the site. He said that the National Register nomination form states that the entire site is the original site of the church, which was purchased by the first trustees. He added that there are more details in the staff report. Weitzel said the Commission had received two letters regarding this application. He pointed out that this is an individually eligible building; it is a National Register building but not a local landmark. Reverend Dial, the pastor of the church, introduced Mel Shaw as the Chair of the Building Committee and also introduced the contractor and the architectural designer. Dial said that the church is full and would like to grow on its current site. He stated that the church would like to build an addition connected to the old church so that it can maintain and continue to use the old space as well. Dial said that the church thinks what it is proposing fits. Michaud asked how much space would still be available for parking. Weitzel said that the Board of Adjustment could grant waivers if the special exception is approved, but that can't be decided until the Commission's decision is made. Dial said that the proposal includes three handicapped parking spaces in the rear that don't exist anywhere now. Swaim asked about the breezeway to separate the old building from the new. Hasdall, the designer for this project, said there would be a small breezeway of about 18 inches. Swaim asked if that could be increased to make it clearer that these are two quite different buildings and that although the new building may be sympathetic in design, it is really separate from the old. She said that when one is looking at it from straight on, there would be much depth between the buildings. Hasdall said that it will be difficult to see from the side. He said that with such a narrow lot, one doesn't get a really good grasp of the elevation from any angle, although it is something he could look at. Hasdall said it would modify some of the gathering space and possibly some of the seating. Brennan said that he Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 13 did not believe there could possibly be a mistake that the addition is not distinct and separate from the original structure. Hasdall said he tried to maintain as much of the integrity as possible and maximize space. Carlson said that one of Terdalkar's main points and his own main concern is that the addition would overwhelm the original building and that the original building would simply be seen as a foyer into what would now be the main building. Carlson said he did not know exactly what to do about that, but reducing the height of the addition and making some kind of further setback would at least help and would make more of a distinction, showing that the original building is more separate and clear as the historic building. Shaw said the church discussed the setback issue, but because the lot is long and narrow, if the breezeway is extended, that is then less room for the sanctuary. He said the church is making this proposal, because it doesn't currently seat very many people. Shaw said that if the breezeway is extended, it shortens the distance of the sanctuary and may preclude parking in the rear. Weitzel said that the east wall then can't be moved. Shaw said that is essentially correct. He said the addition is designed as it is so that there is a clear distinction as to what is old, for example with the raised roof line. Shaw said that realistically, feasibly, and economically, it is better to have the new addition roofline raised and extended from the existing church so that everyone from the south and east can see that there are two different structures and to create additional room in the interior for a vaulted ceiling. Shaw said it is more than just shifting back and elongating; there are structural issues as well. He said that if the roofline was lowered, there would be a step down to the basement. Shaw said it also would be harder and more costly to make a straight walkway from the east all the way to the west. He said that if the roofline is lowered, one would step in and then down, and that would affect the wheelchair lift and other things. Hasdall said that he tried to maintain the interior look of the vault throughout the sanctuary. He said that lowering the addition creates more issues at the front door and with the wheelchair lift and would possibly lower the floor levels of the addition and the existing church. Ponto stated that to him, the addition is clearly different than the existing. He said he is more concerned with alterations on the existing structure than the addition, particularly changing the entryway from a flattish roof to the gable type roof. Ponto said that it looks nice on the plans but alters the existing. Weitzel pointed out that the front entry is not original to the building. Dial said that the original entry was not a covered porch, and when it was covered, it was at an angle and not flat. Toomey asked if that was a blocked in window up above the door. Shaw responded that he believes it used to be a sign. Hasdall said that the existing front cover does feel somewhat confining, so he was hoping to open that up a bit. Weitzel asked how the new roof would interact with the windows. Hasdall said that the lower transom window right above the door could probably be maintained, and he could pop that new entry roof up just a foot or so to maintain that clearance. Diana Penney, whose father was a minister of the church for over 50 years, said that rectangle above the transom window was there when she first saw the church in 1958. She said that the transom above the door was there, but the door from that time was a big, heavy oak door. Dial said there is no glass or glass frame behind that rectangle, so he believes it was probably for a sign. Gunn asked if the front steps would remain the same. Hasdall said he tried to widen them out for traffic flow. Gunn asked if physically the stairs up to the front door would be there. Dial said there will be stairs there. He said the stairs were added when the flat roof was put on the covered porch. Michaud asked where the wheelchair lift would be located. Shaw said that it would be on the south side of the church. Hasdall said that the wheelchair lift would be completely within the building. Gunn asked about the location of the steeple. Dial said the steeple would be new. Shaw said there is not a lot to identify this as a church to a passerby. He said that it is a common feature of churches to have a Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 14 steeple, and the church would like one, as it is the church's hope that with the design of the building and the steeple this will be readily identifiable as a church. Baker asked if it would be possible to put the steeple on the addition instead of the original building. Toomey added that there might be structural issues with putting the steeple on the original building's roof. Hasdall said that the steeple should be fairly light fiberglass and will not be a significant amount of weight. He said that putting the steeple on the original building leaves it much more visible from the front, especially since the lot is very narrow. Weitzel said the Commission has to consider how the architecture and history of the original structure can best be preserved. Shaw said that even if the steeple were to be moved, in every design facet the building will maintain the structure, the design, look and feel. Ponto said that if the fiberglass steeple was put on, it could be removed without significantly altering the historic structure. Weitzel said it would have to be attached in such a way as to make it removable. Brennan said that regardless of how it is attached, if the steeple were later removed, the roof would be shingled, so any changes to the substructure would not be visible anyway. Terdalkar asked if it is creating a false sense of history. He said that historically this church building has been a very modest structure, similar to an 1860s typical schoolhouse building, which would not have been a very elaborate structure. Terdalkar said the larger question is, even with the interior of the structure being maintained, this is basically changing the structure into a subordinate use of the new building. He asked if that is maintaining the historic nature of the building or the significance of the property. Terdalkar said that the addition is possible only because this is a National,Register property. Shaw said there is a distinction to be made regarding the building as it was constructed in 1868. He stated that in 1868, the population of African Americans in Iowa City was quite small, and the number of African Americans in Iowa City who attended that church who had disposable income at that time probably was not a lot. Shaw said that what is seen is therefore an amalgamation of what people were able to afford and build at the time. Shaw said that whether the church uses the front porch, the immediate entryway, or the new structure as its sanctuary doesn't change the use of that building. He said that building will continue to be used as a church, whether worship is done in the basement or outside in tent services at vacation Bible school. Shaw said it doesn't matter where worship is held; what is gained by moving to the new addition is space for people to enjoy themselves in worship. Shaw said that the church will not abandon the eastern part of the structure, and it will be maintained as a meeting place to conduct church business, for programs, and for amenities that the church doesn't have now. He said the church is not changing whether what one sees now as Bethel AME as a church or not; there is no question it will still be used as a church. Shaw said the question is whether the church can bring more people to worship and do so in a more relaxed atmosphere, which he says can be done by preserving the look of the present church. Dial said that what is being proposed is what the congregation would have built in 1868 if it could have. He said that the church wants to be sensitive to the neighborhood and wants the structure to look like it ought to be here. Dial said the church does not want it to look like the original church but does want it to look like it ought to be there. Regarding the steeple, Dial said the church wanted something modest and humble like the original church is. Brennan asked if the double doors on the front would be required by code. Dial said the church would like the double doors to accommodate a casket in the event of a funeral. He said that the church currently cannot hold a funeral in the building. Toomey said the Commission's goal is to try to preserve the historic appearance. He stated that if the door is widened, the transom above the door would need to follow suit. Toomey said he would be more inclined to have an extra large door there. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 15 Regarding the steeple, Toomey said that with the angles and everything, one will hardly be able to tell that this building has been added on. He said that he would rather see the steeple put to the back for the same reason. Toomey said the Commission wants to preserve the integrity of the building as it is now. Dial said that the church can move the steeple back and can look at the doors. He said those are questions that the church could not answer until they were raised. Michaud said it seems logical, if there is a requirement for caskets, to have a 48-inch wide door, if that transom is 48 inches, perhaps there could just be a 48-inch wide door to conform to the length of the transom. She said the steeple could be moved back to the addition so that it is more clear this was a very simple structure to start with. Michaud said that to increase the size of the congregation, this would not be unreasonable. Terdalkar said that this is not the only scenario for this site. He said that one could certainly have a larger breezeway to make a clear enough distinction between the old and the new. Weitzel asked how to do that without reducing the capacity. Terdalkar asked if the Commission is talking about the capacity or the compatibility of the new structure being added on to the historic property. WeitZel said he thinks the Commission needs to consider both. Hasdall said that from a usability standpoint, capacity is key. He said that it affects the appearance and the usability of the breezeway and the design of it. Terdalkar said that an addition is possible on this site only because the building is a historic structure. He said that it would not even be possible to construct a building without the historic designation. Brennan said that what makes this building significant is the life and energy of the congregation that has been there for 140 years. He said that otherwise, the building itself is only a little bigger than the garage the Commission just approved for demolition, and the building has no more distinction than that garage. Brennan said it is the congregation and the events that take place here that make this significant. Michaud asked if the conference room proposed for the front could be used as a gathering room, with the conference room to be on another level. She said that would give a shorter profile, if that would be preferred. Terdalkar said that the addition is much more overpowering to the original building. He said the original building is modest and not significant architecturally. Terdalkar said this is a historic property and asked if it is justified to add this large mass on the site, just because the capacity is needed. He asked what will happen in ten to fifteen years and what will be the effects of this large structure and mass on the site on the properties on the north and the south. Shaw said that the existing scale of the building is 30 feet. He said the addition would be 70 feet and would give the church space to last another 50 to 60 years or more. Shaw said people have been worshipping in that church since 1868. He said the church's proposal would meet its needs for the foreseeable future. Shaw said he knows what an obstacle it has been to get the plans designed and approved within the church, let alone come before the Commission for approval. Shaw said that the church wants to build a permanency in Iowa City. He said the church can't go to the south, north, or the west, because of the existing properties and the alley. Shaw said the church is there and is there to stay. He said that if the church is not intent on staying there and being happy with the space, it would not waste the Commission's time. Dial said the church wants to use what's available to the best of its ability. He added that typically what happens in the Methodist tradition is that a second congregation would be started at some point some place else, should the first church fill to capacity. Dial said it would be great, from a pastor's perspective, to fill up the church so fast and outgrow it. He said that if the church is allowed to build what it is proposing, it could not get any bigger on this site. Dial said at that point, there would probably be a second AME at a different location in the community. He said the new church at 411 South Governor would continue on, and a second congregation could be Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 16 started. Dial said that the church likes being part of this neighborhood. He said the congregation is currently at 48 members, and the church is filled to capacity. Weitzel said that anyone looking at this building can see that it is not a big building. He pointed out that there are two letters from neighbors who both seem positive about the growth of the church in this area and are not against the use of it any way. Weitzel said one letter expresses concern about the design, and one does not. He asked Dial if he had received any other comments from neighbors or others. Dial said that neighbors were invited to a meeting on Monday to ask questions and express concerns, and they were informed of this night's meeting. He said that the eight people who came to the meeting were all positive and supportive and liked having the church in the neighborhood. Dial said the people who attended the gathering all liked the design. Michaud asked about having the fenestration look different on the addition. Weitzel said there are varied philosophies about adding on to a historic structure. He said that one school of thought is to make the addition as modern and different as possible. Weitzel said that other people just cannot tolerate doing that to the original building. He said one way to distinguish an addition is the rhythm or patterning of the fenestration. Weitzel said he did not know what the right answer is, as he has not studied church architecture much. Swaim said that across the nation in the last 20 years, there have been a lot of churches in older parts of cities or downtowns leaving their buildings because of the lack of parking or outgrowing the facilities. She stated that it is great to see a church in Iowa City that wants to stay and function wh,ere it is. Swaim said she has concerns about the mass but feels that they can be worked out somehow. She said that Trinity Episcopal's addition was a beautiful solution. Swaim said there was a little more distance between the two structures, which works for her. Swaim said that she would like to see the steeple on the newer part. She said that it would not be that different and would clearly show that this is a bigger, different structure; the church started off very humble, and that is still who it is. Swaim said she does not have concerns about how the interior is used. She said that kind of flexibility should certainly be allowed here. Swaim said this is a unique situation, and the Commission needs to honor this building but give quite a bit of credit to the congregation for maintaining it and trying to stay in the same place. Toomey asked how the new addition would be sided. Hasdall said that it would match the existing wood siding. Toomey said that if there is a concern for differential between the old and the new, that could be a point of differentiation. Hasdall said he could go with a cement-type plank siding that would match in appearance. He said that as Weitzel stated, one wants to go to either extreme, being completely different or mimicking as much as possible, but one doesn't want to be in the middle. Michaud said her concern about the fenestration is that the windows seem very modern for the neighborhood. She said that something more traditional or symmetrical would blend in with the neighbors, rather than necessarily the front part. Michaud said that increasing the breezeway a bit and using a different material such as stone or glass might differentiate it better. Weitzel said that the house on the north side of the church was built last year. He said that it was built as a 1920s structure, however. Dial said the congregation has wrestled with these plans for three years to come up with this proposal and considered some of these same issues. He said the church wants it to look somewhat the same. Weitzel said that the neighboring structure is a two and one-half story prairie style building. He said that the addition would actually be shorter and would step down from the property to the north. Brennan asked if any of the windows would be stained or colored glass. Hasdall said he thought the majority of the glass would be stained or colored to let natural light through. Swaim asked if there is stained glass in the original building. Swan said that it is frosted glass. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 17 Dial said that from the church's perspective, the whole building will be the church, and there is not a big distinction made about where people worship. He said the feeling is that the church is increasing where people worship. Hasdall said that in comparing the scalability, the peak of the roof of the new Clddition may be six or possibly eight feet higher than the existing church. He said he believes the peak will be shorter than the building next door. Gunn asked what would happen to the existing roof where the breezeway would be. Hasdall said it would not be modified in any way, that they do not touch. He said the wall of the addition would not touch the fascia of the existing roof in any way. Hasdall said the breezeway was designed for a complete separation of new and old. He said there would be about six inches between the fascia and the walls. Gunn asked about the double doors in front. Hasdall said that the proposal is for six feet, a set of double threes. He said that going to even a 32, 42, or 48 might not allow for space for a 'casket with people on both sides carrying it. Gunn said that a single door big enough for a casket and people on the sides would have to be a huge door, and it has to open one way, so that the whole porch becomes a place where the door swings. Weitzel added that it would be too heavy to be an ADA door. Gunn said he thought that whatever design comes in, the tendency of the Commission is to change it somehow to make it better. He said that this seems to be pretty close to being a very good design, all things considered. Gunn said that the entry is very simple, and he thinks the pesign of the entry is reasonable. He said he thinks the design of the double doors is reasonable, just from a practical standpoint. Weitzel asked if the double doors could go on the addition. Hasdall said that he looked at that, and it made the addition even wider yet. Miller, the contractor, said that there are larger doors made with side panels that are semi-fixed that give the appearance of one door with a matching wood panel but would open up when necessary. Miller said that it would be two doors, one narrow and one a normal size, but it looks like there is a wood panel on the side, although it would open. Baker and Gunn questioned whether that would be better than a single door, and Baker said that it would also change the look. Gunn said that one would expect to see double doors on the front of a church. He said that this would be a huge addition. He said that this is a huge addition that doesn't fit with the original building and doesn't fit well in the neighborhood, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be built. Gunn said that once one gets past the fact that it is a huge addition, it strikes him as being pretty much okay. He said that it is differentiated, the addition on the front is compatible with what was there, and everything the Commission normally asks for is here. Gunn said that the church can't have a tiny addition in the back that is one-third the size of the original building and have anything. Weitzel said it seems that the neighborhood is accepting of the design. He stated that the Commission recently denied a building, because it didn't fit the massing and scale guidelines. Weitzel said, however, that there are some very large apartment buildings on this block. Miller agreed and said there are so many different things going on on this block that it is hard to know what to scale off of. Weitzel said this is in a different context than the proposal denied by the Commission. Toomey said that the photograph shows a side roof. Hasdall said that is the way to get to the basement of the existing church. Penney said that the basement was put under the church around 1925. Weitzel asked if anything would be done with that. Dial said that with the proposed plan, one could get into the basement without having to use that entryway. Hasdall said the thought was to remove the door and patch it, so it would appear as if it was never there to begin with. Swaim asked about the porch and the transom. Hasdall said he thought the roof could be raised about a foot and still maintain the transom. Ponto said the transom would be narrower than the double door and asked if that would look funny. Hasdall said that the triangle of the gable would still feel proportionate with the front entry. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 18 Gunn said that he thought that if the transom were retained, it would be a new one over a wider door. He said that one wouldn't want to save a little, old transom over a wider, lower door, so it would be a new transom anyway or it won't look right. Gunn said it is a battle between preserving the old and doing something that looks architecturally okay today. Ponto said he views the front door as analogous to egress windows in that changes have to be made for utilitarian reasons. Gunn said that he has heard lots of ideas, and all of them seem reasonable, but he hasn't heard anything that really, to him, makes a huge difference from what is already before the Commission. He said that a foot or so could be added to the breezeway but asked if that would really change anything. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the applications for 411 South Governor Street. Brennan seconded the motion. Swaim said she feels strongly that the steeple should be moved to the new addition. She said the application also refers to vinyl siding. Toomey said that the application refers to vinyl siding on the addition. Terdalkar said that the first page refers to vinyl clad windows. Dial said that the plan is for vinyl clad energy efficient windows and the cedar matching clap siding. Weitzel said that in a conservation district on a contributing structure, vinyl siding is disallowed, as are vinyl windows. Toomey said that there are guidelines about embellishments, which might affect the steeple. Weitzel said that is more of a judgment call, whether or not that is adding a false sense of history or not. Gunn said the purpose is to preserve the character of the original building. Weitzel said the debate would be whether the steeple adds a false sense of history and decorative elements that wouldn't have been found on the original building. Michaud said that cement siding could be used and said that it holds paint much better than wood. Gunn withdrew the original motion, and Brennan withdrew his second of the motion. MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 411 South Governor Street as submitted, with the following exceptions: the steeple is to be moved to the front of the new addition; the vinyl siding is disallowed, with the use of fiber cement board or wood in its place; and the vinyl clad windows are disallowed, with the windows to be metal clad wood or wood. Brennan seconded the motion. Carlson said he is still not convinced that this is the only option available, although he recognizes this is a difficult site to deal with. He said that before he would be willing to approve such a massive change to the building that would overpower the original building, he would want to look at more examples of small buildings that have been added to see what has been done in such situations. Michaud said that this is a very narrow lot, so the addition has to go to the west for. a significant distance, or it will be an insignificant addition. She said that the church needs to stay where it is. Carlson said he had no problem with that and would like to see the church stay at the same location. He said that he has no problem with an addition in concept, even a large addition in concept, although the larger and taller it gets, the more problem he has with it. Toomey questioned whether this would even be seen from the street level. Terdalkar said yes and showed a photograph of the existing building to explain. Terdalkar said he asked the State Historical Society for examples and recommendations for this type of project, and if they can offer some technical assistance on this proposal. Terdalkar said he has enquired if the Midwest Office of the National Trust could provide any assistance. He said that, in his opinion, this is not the only design that could be built here to achieve the congregation's goal. Terdalkar said that, if the applicant agrees, Friends of Historic Preservation is also ready to help with technical advice and architectural services. Dial said that the proposal did not come about because it was the only thing the church could come up with. He said the church has worked with OPN on many different options, and this plan was what the congregation could agree upon. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 19 Weitzel said that the design has had a number of months, if not years, of development. He said the following issues have been addressed: whether the building addition can be lowered, whether the addition can be wider or set further to the east, the possibility of the steeple being an embellishment, whether and how the front door should be changed, the materials, setting the building off, and how the neighborhood would be affected. Weitzel said the Commission has looked at the historic details and how these things relate to the guidelines. He said that if a member votes yes, he is saying that the conditions are met, and a no vote says that the conditions are not met. The motion carried on a vote of 8-1. with Carlson votina no. 414 and 422 Brown Street. Terdalkar said that this application involves two different properties identified as 414 Brown Street and 422 Brown Street that contain four addresses together; 414 Brown Street has a property, 418 Brown Street, in the back. He said that 414 Brown Street is a key, contributing structure and a National Register property. Terdalkar said that the property to the east is 422 Brown Street, which is a contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District, and there are several additions on the property, as well as the 426 Brown Street address there. Terdalkar said that the application is to install metal roofs on most of the flat roofs on both properties, including the front porches of both original historic houses. Terdalkar said the applicant is also requesting approval for replacing some of the existing shingled roofs with shingled roofs to match. He said the applicant is also requesting approval of the replacement of a set of guardrails on the existing window wells, and there is also a set of basement stairs on the southwest side of 422 Brown Street, as well as the front porch of the original structure at 414 Brown Street. Terdalkar said that the application also proposes to put metal railings and guardrails on the front porch there, although no design has been proposed. Richard Wayne, the owner of the property, referred to the complete roof layout. He said that at the southeast corner of the large building, 422 Brown Street, roof number ten, the broken line at the south end of it doesn't belong there; it belongs 25 feet south where it says 16.7. Wayne said that whatever is south of that broken line is the original foursquare house. He said that the footprint was originally 1,500 square feet, but it now exceeds 8,000 square feet. He said the original house therefore is less than 20% of the footprint of the current house. Wayne said that roof number ten is tarped because of leaks and said that trees overhang part of that roof. Wayne said that roof number seven in the southwest corner has three leaks and is tarped. He said that roof number six has two leaks. Wayne added that none of the flat roofs have enough pitch to support shingles. Wayne said that roof number 17 has a terrible area with a valley should be done in metal so that there is a compatible system to handle the valley there. He said that roof number eight is leaking but is not tarped. Wayne stated that roof number nine is starting to leak and has a hole in it. Wayne said that he does not know why 426 Brown Street is a contributing property. He added that none of the flat roofs can be seen from the street. Wayne said that roof number eleven is a small porch roof and is leaking. He said that roof number twelve is not leaking now, but it looks terrible. Wayne stated that roof number 13 has a terrible valley where it is literally flat. He said that roof 14 has multiple small leaks that are being stemmed for now with tarps. Wayne said that roof 15 has a good-sized leak, and there are stains on the interior ceiling under roof number 16. Wayne said that on the brick house, porch roof number five looks terrible but isn't leaking. He said that he would like to do something with that, as it needs to be replaced. Wayne said that roof three is the original metal roof and needs to be painted. He said that the roof on the brick house has a lot of rust but is not leaking. Wayne said that the rolled roofs last about five years, so he would like to use the metal. Historic Preservation Commission December 14. 2006 Page 20 Weitzel said that the two further back buildings are non-historic structures. He said that the two buildings in the front have all low-pitched roofing. Weitzel said that with the exception of the front porch on the southwest building, he did not believe there were any probably significant roofs. He said that these are all flat-pitched roofs, and he did not think any of the roofs can be seen from the street. Weitzel said that the materials proposed are appropriate materials for those roofs. He said that roof number 17 will probably have problems, the way it comes together, no matter what material is used there. Wayne said that he at least wants to make it better. Gunn asked about the standing seam metal roof. Wayne said that it is a metal roof with ribs, and usually every fourth rib hides a seam. Weitzel said that they are mechanical seams, not soldered. Baker asked if there are any alternative materials. Weitzel replied that EPDM would work for these situations, as would a PVC membrane that mayor may not need to be repainted in the next five to ten years. He said there is also EPDM without ballast. Weitzel said there are various other materials where a membrane or spun fiber can be used that would last five to ten years. He said that a metal roof is probably one of the longer lasting materials. Gunn agreed that the lower pitched roofs cannot be seen. He said that EPDM is a great roof for porches. Ponto asked what kind of guardrails is proposed here. Wayne asked for suggestions from the Commission. Weitzel suggested a welded, plain metal pipe rail. Terdalkar said that only a handrail is needed on the stairs. Weitzel said another possibility would be to do a better handrail using the four posts in the ground. Regarding the window well, Weitzel said that a metal grate could be used to cover the hole, and then a guardrail would not be needed. Gunn asked if that is a required exit, and Wayne confirmed this. Gunn said that a grate cannot be put on a required exit. Weitzel said that a guardrail could be made out of wood or steel, and that could be used for the big window well also. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 414 and 422 Brown Street as proposed, with the clarification that the handrails for the porch on 414 Brown Street be simple pipe rails and that the window well railings be simple and according to code. Toomey seconded the motion. Carlson asked if anyone had a problem with the large profile of a modern standing seam metal roof. Weitzel said that there are not a lot of hips, and that is usually where one encounters a problem. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 415 Brown Street. Terdalkar said that this property is a contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District. He stated that the application is for a deck and a pergola, and the applicant has provided some options as to how the steps would descend from the deck. Terdalkar added that the application was just submitted yesterday, so he was unable to prepare a staff report. Terdalkar said that the applicant also proposes to extend the deck on the west fa<;ade to the line of the existing bay. Terdalkar suggested that the deck not be extended beyond the existing plane of the building and, if possible, be set back from the existing plane. Terdalkar said that the deck would be visible from the street otherwise. Terdalkar suggested that the foundation of the new structure be built with masonry peers, instead of covering it and masking it with the trellis work. He suggested that the corners be masonry peers with the concrete block. Terdalkar said there also needs to be more details regarding the baluster, the newel posts, and the railing of the stairs. Terdalkar said that before the addition to the house was built, the base was done with masonry, concrete block. He said that although it doesn't match the exact appearance of the foundation on the house, which he believed to be limestone, it makes a distinction and shows where there is a new addition, yet still follows the principle of having a masonry foundation for the new structure. . Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 21 Terdalkar said that by covering that with trellis all the way to the corners and not exposing any part of the peers, it looks like the foundation is standing on the trellis work and it is not based on a foundation. He said that he would recommend keeping the corner exposed. Nerad, the owner of the house, said that the point of the trellis is that it would match the porch in the front. Terdalkar said that one would not find trellis going all the way to the edge of the foundation; it is normally found between the posts. Nerad asked how far apart the cement blocks should be. Terdalkar said that would depend on the peer but suggested using block that is about 20 inches. Weitzel said there are only three, across the front porch, so he suggested one in each corner. Toomey suggested having one on either side of the stairs as one comes down. He said that one can buy stone blocks that look like the front. Nerad said that he would try to make it match. He said that the post and railing he would like to use would be pretty much a duplicate of what is on the front. Toomey suggested using simple square spindles. Nerad agreed but stated that the original posts were round, and there was a balustrade on the top. Terdalkar suggested that the posts on the deck be simpler than the inset panels. Nerad said that if he did extend the deck to the side, he did not think it would show from the street. He asked if that was a code issue. Weitzel responded that one of the guidelines is to keep this stepped back so that it is not visible from the street. Nerad said that one might be able to see it from an angle if one is stepping back from his neighbor's house. Terdalkar showed a photograph of the back where he said the deck would clearly be seen. Nerad asked if he could put a stairway down from the deck that is visible there without actually having the deck come out so that there would be two stairways there. Terdalkar said that a deck is not historically found on houses, so the intent of the guideline is to not show modern additions. He said that steps could be put back where they would not be seen from the front of the house. Nerad said that he was trying to tie the deck in with the bay window. He said that one could see it from an angle but would have to be looking for it. Nerad asked what the difference is between a deck and a porch. He asked why this is different from the porch, which is totally visible from the front. Weitzel said that porches are historically on houses, and decks are a modern fabrication. Nerad said that this is a reasonable addition. He said that the house across the street is a total abomination, and his house is so much better than it was when he bought it. Nerad said it seems a little inconsistent that someone who is working in the spirit of the neighborhood to upgrade the value and who wants to have a reasonable addition will not be able to build it the way he wants to, just because if one looks at it from an acute angle it can be seen. He said he just thinks that the spirit of the thing is a little off base. Nerad said that the structure will essentially be seen only from the alley. Baker said that according to guideline 5.2 for decks, the deck needs to be set in from the side walls at least eight inches, which would preclude bumping out to behind the bay. Weitzel said the Commission is allowing this to be built along the house simply because the bay screens part of it. Gunn said that the Commission must follow the guidelines for the house across the street and for this house as well so that its decisions are not arbitrary. Nerad said that he has heard arbitrary decisions tonight about windows and steps and spending an hour and one-half on the church and then making exceptions to basically decide in favor of exactly what the church wanted. Weitzel pointed out that the church is in a conservation district rather than a historic district, so the guidelines and standards are different. Nerad said he could live with the deck either way, but he would just like to have access to the deck from other than the steep hill in back. He said that he was trying to hide the steps on the side. Nerad said that his main concern is the function, but he wants it to look good as well. Terdalkar said that behind the steps the deck would also protrude about 3 Y2 feet. Weitzel said that right now there is a n'ice, clean side of a historic building, and if all of that is put on there, it will obscure a lot of that look. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 22 Michaud said that she could see this if there were a driveway here, but since it is not really leading anywhere except to the front, she did not know that it is necessary. Weitzel said there is an entrance from the back of the deck and from the addition. He said that shortening it a few inches to make it in line with the addition and minimize the view from the street doesn't really change the mass of that pergola, and he doesn't think it really changes the function at all. Nerad said he does not think it unreasonable to have more than one set of steps. Gunn asked if pergolas are historic. Weitzel said they would not be found on a Victorian house. Carlson said they would probably have been found a decade or two after this house was built. Weitzel said they would have usually been found in a garden. Swaim said she thought that it would look nice. Ponto said that in the future, if someone did not want the pergola, it could probably be removed without causing much damage. Weitzel said that if people are going to vote against the guidelines, they need to cite the exception and why they think this would qualify for the exception. Gunn said his question really involved whether or not it would be appropriate to see a pergola from the street. He said that if this was a porch Nerad was putting on with a roof and porch details and it was compatible with the structure, even if it would be visible, it would probably be acceptable. Weitzel said that if the pergola was in the yard and less than 144 square feet, the Commission would not even review it. He said that because it is attached to the house, it becomes a building permit issue. Brennan said that the eight-inch setback is a recommendation, not a requirement. He said that the only thing that is a requirement is that a deck should be as unobtrusive as possible. Weitzel said that in that case, someone voting in favor would not need to cite an exception. MOTION: Brennan moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 415 Brown Street, as submitted. Swaim seconded the motion. Toomey asked if the motion would allow the deck to extend past the house. Brennan confirmed this. Weitzel said the guidelines recommend that the structure be set back, so the Commission does have latitude. Michaud said she would suggest that this be flush with the building, because of the gambrol roof. She said that it softens it considerably when one goes to a right angle pergola, which has very harsh lines. Michaud said if that is protruding behind the wall, it won't look good, but the stairway doesn't seem as big of a problem. Ponto said that he likes this, except he thought it should not extend past the corner of the main house, because of the way it would look. He said that in this situation, he was not convinced that an exception was needed to deviate from the suggested guidelines. Carlson said that he wished he had had a chance to visit the site, as it is hard to visualize what this would look like from the alley and the street from the photographs. Toomey stated that it is a pretty slanted back yard. Michaud said she could see some justification for steps on the side, because of the slope of the yard. Swaim said she agreed and said she had less of a problem with the side stairway than with the pergola extending out. Nerad said his idea was to hide the steps in line with the bay window. Carlson said that since he can't visualize this, he would like to stick with what the guidelines recommend, which is actually setting in from the side wall. He said that he might go for something that is flush with the side wall, but right now he did not have the information to approve that. Terdalkar said that there are no specifications for the railing or the newel posts. Weitzel stated that Nerad had wanted to match the front porch with regard to those details. Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2006 Page 23 Gunn suggested that an professional could shed some light on some of these decisions by doing an architectural drawing. Nerad said that he would like to finish this, although he said he can't finish this until he has proper egress. Weitzel said that what Gunn is suggesting is that the Commission doesn't have enough details from the drawing to know what it would be approving, although sketch three is pretty clear. Weitzel said he thought that most people were okay with the stairs but had a problem with the pergola and deck extending be~ond the line of the house. He added that the other problem is that if there is a pergola from the mid 20 century proposed for a Queen Anne/Edwardian house, then there are competing styles. Weitzel questioned, for example, which style the newel posts would take on. Nerad replied that he would like to match those details to the existing porch on the house. Weitzel said that without a clear drawing, it is hard to visualize what this would look like, and that makes it more difficult to approve this. Toomey said it could be stipulated that the spindles match the existing on the front porch and that the posts have similar dimensions to those on the current porch. Weitzel said that square posts with a 45 degree or other mitered top or a square Edwardian top would look okay. Nerad said he thinks that is a good suggestion, and he wants to get something that will look appropriate. Weitzel said that while the stairs functionally don't bother him so much on the side, especially if they are made as narrow as possible, he did not want to have the pergola standing out from the side of the house, so he would have to vote against this. Baker said she would vote against it for the same reason, and Swaim agreed. Nerad asked if it is agreeable if he doesn't have it extend out three feet. Brennan withdrew his motion, and Swaim withdrew her second. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 415 Brown Street, as proposed, with the following stipulations: the deck and pergola are to extend no farther than the corner of the house; the balustrades are to be compatible with what is on the front of the house, with newel posts and caps to be discussed and approved with staff; with the foundation peers to be visible with lattice between. Swaim seconded the motion. Toomey asked Nerad how committed he was to the pergola. Nerad said that he likes the look of the pergola. Weitzel said he doesn't like the look of the pergola sticking out from the side of the house. Swaim asked, if the pergola and the deck were set in from the house, would that them allow the deck steps to extend to the side with less of a problem. Terdalkar said that then there would be less deck surface area, but the owner could still have the steps to the side and everything could stay within the existing building wall plane to the east of it. Swaim said she was not suggesting that it be set back completely but suggesting setting it back somewhat. Toomey said that the steps could be notched back into the deck. He suggested having the deck eight inches back from the corner and then coming around with the steps and coming in. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto moved to amend the motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 415 Brown Street, as proposed, with the following stipulations: the deck and pergola are to extend no farther than the corner of the house; the balustrades are to be compatible with what is on the front of the house, with newel posts and caps to be discussed and approved with staff; with the foundation peers to be visible with lattice between; and with the option of having a stairway on the side, with the steps to be notched out of the deck as shown in the drawing proposed by Terdalkar. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte <:: o 'in III 'E E o () 510 ~g ~N 3l v- Q)~ c:~v .g EN .8B~ .!!! Q) ell J:Cla. = o .... 'Ii 'Ii .s El"O o "" u 8 Q,l =~ . :; Q,l 'I:) -(j= ~ = = E: ~ N Q,l"O 'Ii = Q,l Q,l ""- Q..;- (j< .... "" o - 'Ii == 'V I I I W I I I I I ..... >< >< >< - ...... N I I I 0 I I I I I .... I I I I I I I I ..... I W I I I I I N >< >< >< >< >< - ...... .... I 0 I I I I I ..... I I I I I I 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 N >< >< >< c;; I 0 I I I I 0 I 0 I I I I I I 'V W I I I I I I .... >< >< >< 0 I >< c;; ...... 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 N >< >< >< - ...... "" 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 - >< >< >< >< CD I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I II) 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 ..... >< >< >< - ...... II) I 0 I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I >< >< >< >< II) I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I "" I I I I I I I I I N >< >< >< >< ~ I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I M I 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 (/) 0> co ...... <0 ...... co ~ co 0> ...... ...... 0> 0> 0> <0 co E ~ 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0 Q Q Q Q Q - - ... .- 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> (l)Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f-- >< W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ~ ~ 8- c ~ ni nI ~ E 0 E c c ~ .2 E "C 0 ~ >- E Q) nI 0 ::s ~ E (l) (jj E ~ c CI) C nI ni 0 nI CI) .s E l/I .tl (l) C l/I .c 'E nI '; l/I ~ 't: 0 C .c () () c .c 0 ~ 03 l!! C C) ~ nI nI ::s nI C) C) :i nI 0 C) 0 Z 1Il 1Il () w C) :E :E :E D.. D.. l/) l/) f-- "0 Q) l/) Ci> :::::l () c>..o X c: E W+:iQ) :+:;'Q):2: c: Q) ccQ):2:03 Q) l/) ..... l/)~:9oo ~..o""""zz 0..<(111111 ~ II II ~ :2: ~><OOZ