The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-12-2007 Historic Preservation Commission IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, June 12, 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 A. Consent Calendar: (Certificates for routine or non-controversial projects) 1. 705 S. Summit Street 2. 811 E. College Street B. Deferred Application 1. 923 Iowa Avenue C. Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. 919 and 923 E Washington Street 2. 1025 E Burlington Street D. Minutes for May 31,2007 4. Discussion of Draft Preservation Plan Update 5. Other 6. Adjourn Staff Report June 12, 2007 Historic Review for 705 S. Summit Street District: Summit Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Ruedi and Cecile Kuenzli, are requesting approval for an alteration project proposed at 70S South Summit Street, which is a contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. The applicants are requesting approval for the installation of a skylight and 'sun-dome'. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations Staff Comments The applicants are proposing to install a 21-1/2 inches wide and 38-1/2 inches long skylight on the north side and a sun-dome, approximately 14-inch in diameter on the south side, both to the west of the existing dormers. "As the skylight and sun-dome will not be highly visible from the street, the proposed alterations meet the guidelines. Staff recommends approval. -../ Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at www. icgov.orgIHPhandbook. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. ~:t:t~b~~ted .......~.f!:/.~i.~....... o Certificate of No Material Effect ~C~ificate of Appropriateness vE:f Major review o Intermediate review o Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) .Ii Owner K~~.~....::*...Ce..C;.J.e........K~.~.ft:\.2:.J.\. Phone.... .3.~.a::-::. 7... ~ .~. Z............... .................................... Address .7Q.~ .....~.~..$ .\d.~.~.~: .~......~ .t..:.............. email......r.:k1~Q.tf.:-::..K~~~.1P.l..~~~.~.9.~...~.\d o Contractor.. .M.Q..r...k... .a.~~.;.~.1................... ............. Add ress ..... t ,.~.~..... J).y..b..~.~....~............................. Phone. ...... .~.M .~.. ~.~J. ~.............................. ......... ........ ...... emai I........... ..... .............. ......... ...... ............. ................................ ...... o Cons u Itant ................................................... ................ .............. Add ress .................... .............. ..................................... ................... Phone........... ............. ............. ............. ........ .................................... emai I........... ........ .............. ......... .... ..................... ..... ........................ .Application Requirements Attached are the following items: o Site plan o Floor plans o Building elevations. ~ Photographs o Product information o Other .... ..... ...................................................................... If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property ..:7.0.~...:~..:...~.k\.It1r:t.~.c:J....J..t..:.......... ........... ..............................:r: .0. ..~.9.... .t;:.!;,.. .,...rA...t: ~~~ Q.. Use of property ..........r:e..s.;.!:':L~.y,.....*.....9.~.~............ Date constructed (if known) ..........t.~..~.~...................................... Historic Designation o This property is a local historic landmark OR ~ This property is located in the: o Brown Street Historic District o College Green Historic District o East College Street Historic District o Longfellow Historic District )(, Summit Street Historic District o Woodlawn Historic District o Clark Street Conservation District o College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District o Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ~ Contributing o Noncontributing o Nonhistoric P~ject Type ~ Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch ~ction, baluster repair or similar) o Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) o Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) o Construction of new building o Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance o Other ..:lk1.s.~l.l.........:tlf:t.Q.....s.ky.:.l,~{;;............. ---' Project description ...............::I.h..s.~~:b~.~~...... .4......Q.~......S..!::!:l!l'...I.I.......$...~y.l.~~........Q.~.. ....t4......h9r..~......s.;.~...... ....... ................. ..b~.b...~....d .0. r.~.~. .t............................. ....... ........................ .... ............... ...... ............................................................ ..... ................... ..................b.)e......~.~.~.......A;.k.....(:>..p..E.P..~........o:f......!:h.~.b.B.g,;.~........~...; ..~.9~......~.~..~.............. ................ ..-'-;..a&.......s..k."1.1.;.~........~'::J.......~....,$p..~.~.......f;.I:a.r.....~.t;!....A.6..:.~.. ...do.r...~...:.... .. No r ~ s: ~ o\e.. ( kL;... rf olo r<-.r- l) Ve.\~)(. 5k11;~ 2.\ 12 )( 3 <f /2. ~) So (:)"'"'" ~ ~:~ - .... ........ ....... ....... .................. ....... ...... ............ ....... ........... Ve.l '-'- )C ~ - L {.... Ill!. c.. 1- Materials to be used ~ '-'-"'" olo~ ~ u " .. ......... ....?~. ~J~....... .~~1;l.~......", .k.. 7-. .l::\~..... ....,.... ....!?:.':I:. .K:.3 Q.......... ........ ............. ....... ........... ....... .......................... ........................ Exterior appearance changes ....... .....J3g.~J&...........~.....~k'1.l;.~b....... ~!.Il.....~......p.lg.~.........btz..h.\:he:!......#"'...~. r..~..,................ ..............~.....~; A?:!?......h.Q J......~ ...... .~.:.,f. Lb.:e~..... .~.~... ....~.. ....~:I::. I.................................................................. ppdadm/H P Handbook! App.p65 ~.~ \. ~ , \" i - 'I ~ ~.~.- Staff Report June 12, 2007 Historic Review for 811 E. College Street District: College Green Historic District Classification: Key-Contributing The applicant, Mark McCallum, is requesting approval for an alteration project proposed at 811 East College Street, which is a key-contributing property in the College Green Conservation District. Earlier last year, the Commission approved a certificate for the removal of the aluminum siding and repair/restoration wood shingle siding on the 'carriage house' located behind the sanitarium. The applicant also received approval for replacing the doors. The applicant is now seeking approval for the installation of canopies over the entry doors located on the south fac;ade of the second floor. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations Staff Comments The applicant reports that part of the reason for installing the proposed canopies is to provide some protection from the elements, as currently there is none. As this structure, originally a garage, has been built" with salvaged materials and rather minimal but complimentary (to the sanitarium) stylistic features, staff recommends that the canopies be built with few if any stylistic features to avoid adding un-original stylistic features to the structure. The canopy is proposed to be built with wood triangular braces that would support a 'shed roof spanning the width of the doors. Staff rec~mmends that the pitch of roof should be kept minimum. The canopy would project approximately 3 feet from the wall plain. The applicant has indicated agreement on the staff suggestions. The applicant has submitted an example of a similar 'canopy'. Staff recommends approval. Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at WMY. icgov. orglH Phandbook.. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. ~:t:t~b~~ted .....p.'ir?.$ft....7::........ o Certificate of No Material Effect!.... ~ Certificate of Appropriateness o Major review o Intermediate review o Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) . ~owner .If) A!!: .~.. firQ!. !~~........................................... Phone... .... ':1:.3. ~ :~..l.Jj..~.!......... .il"............ sf.... ......... ....... Address ... .B.. ...... ....l..\...... t:b.......~...................... ................ ~'~~;;::::Jg~:~~::h:~::G:::6."d.:i.:m~:;l::f.:2:::::::::::::::::::: o Contractor..:: ....~:f.. .t..... ............................. ............ .......... . Address ....81.1..... ..~........W;, ~........................................... -- Phone... .......................... .......................................... ....................... .-- emai I................................................................................................ ~onsultant ..~........................................................... ..... ..... Add ress ... ...-:-:::::.. .............. .............................................................. Phone.................... ................. ............................... .......................... email......... ..................................... ....................... ................... ........ Application Requirements . Attached are the following items: o Site plan o Floor plans o ~uilding elevations ra Photographs o Product information o Other.......................................................... ..... ............... If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings. and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property .....fJ.d...If..!...r;l4.'f, ..... ...... ...... ...... ....... ....... Use of property. ..Ad..t.... J. Q/ld4f.J. ............................................. Date constructed (if known) ......!..r.~.1.......................................... Historic Designation o This property is a local historic landmark OR o This property is located in the: o ~rown Street Historic District d' College Green Historic District o East College Street Historic District o Longfellow Historic District o Summit Street Historic District o Woodlawn Historic District o Clark Street Conservation District o College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District D Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Wi~n the district, this property is classified as: riI' Contributing o N.oncontributing o Nonhistoric pr..<'ject Type ~ ;Iteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) o Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) o Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) o Construction of new building o Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance o Other ....... ...................................... ...................... .......... ................. "', Project description ........... ................. ............ .:,:............................ 'n" ........ ...... ............... ...........:...... ...;::-....... ............. .............~................................. .................... ..... ........................ .. ..Om g....... .A.V:!..0(lv...... ..6X!t.... ..t?/?.Pf.. M.fJ.....~............&.:!..... Y..~.#:.........(1 f... ...~.~& !.r..... ~ ............ ..................................... ..... II ....,.. ......... II .......... .... 11...........,.............. " I..... .......... II........ .................. .................................. ~ ........ .......... ....... ......... .......... ......... ... :.~Lek~~~.~..~~.....qf...A~4#f.....~.~..~?.~....=......l~/t.7~....=:....................... .~19. ~ ...1.............................. .................................................... ....... .............. ............. ..................................................................................................... . . .. ......... ....." ....... ....... .....". ...".... .......""... ... 1......1 1...1 ... ..... II "' II ... I" II 11.1,.1. II ....... ......, II' .... ... .......,.. ...... II ..... ...t ..... .......1.... ..... .... ...." ........ .... .... .... .... ......... ....."..". ... ......".".. Exterior appearance changes ............................... ../......... .................................................................... ...................................... .................................:...... ..J.... ................... .............................. ....~.......fZ~:I...~..::::::......kkl..k. ......~.. .9.t!(........tU.~......{R..(!.~........~0!:!.?0}:...........=......I.Y..9..................... ..... .t!..t:1?.~... ~.... .'f:!J..~m...J......... .(~........ .qT..\,.......................................................................................................................................................... ppdadm/H P Handbook! App.p65 Io\va C:ity Historic Preservation Commission City [TalL 410 }<: \X/<lshington Street, Towa City. fA. 52240 MEMORANDUM Date: June 08, 2007 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Re: Deferred Agenda Item (May 31) 923 Iowa Avenue In your meeting on May 31, the Commission requested additional information about possible alternatives for the proposed accessible ramp for the proposed multi-family building at 923 Iowa Avenue. The staff consulted with the Building Official and found that due to the site situation, a variance from the accessibility requirements cannot be granted. However, the Building Official discussed other possible alternatives to provide equal access to the primary entry, including an alternative that will potentially reduce the length of the ramp. The staff has tried to meet with the applicant to discuss the alternatives. Staff has also sought some guidance from the SHSI office. Staff will report to the Commission about the progress on or before the Tuesday, June 12. Staff Report Historic Review for 919-923 E. Washington Street District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing June 12, 2007 The applicant, 4A Properties LC, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition project at 919 and 923 East Washington Street. Both properties are listed as contributing properties in the College Hill Conservation District. The applicant is seeking approval for the demolition of a shared garage. . The Commission has received many demolition requests for outbuildings and garages in recent past. The criteria for review are listed in the guidelines and approvals are considered on a case-by-case basis, however the Commission may also want to note that many of the modest outbuildings, although not architecturally significant, are part of our older residential areas. Such outbuildings also represent a simple, functional architecture that complements the primary buildings they associated with. They in many instances provide the much desired physical buffers and privacy for lowers density single-family or two unit buildings from the higher density multifamily buildings. We often find that after the demolition of the outbuildings most of the yards are paved, effectively changing the character of the neighborhood permanently. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments The garage sits between two Queen Ann style houses. This modest two stall garage, shared by between the two properties, has a front gable roof, ship-lap siding and four light barn-sash windows. According to the assessor's property records, the garage was built in the 1940s. The garage sustained some damage in the April 2006 tornado and the applicant has not made any efforts to repair the garage, and is now seeking approval for demolition. . Except for the two photographs (showing a portion the leaning west wall) submitted along with the application, the applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the garage is beyond repair nor the future plans for the area. Although the garage is not considered as an architecturally outstanding structure, in staffs opinion, it has not been altered over the years. Staff believes that with some work to correct the lean in the walls, which may involve repairing/replacing some structural members from the wall, the garage can be repaired. Staff is working with the housing inspectors to asses the structural integrity of the garage and report to the commission on or before June 12. Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code S~ction 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at WMv. icgov.orgIHPhandbook. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) o Owner fd......flo.p&..cl.(~.s......lh..................... Pho ne..... ..:3.1.. 9..:... ~,?tl...:'t Sz 2.. ..7.................~....... ...... A~ess ....r.I.~r.iJ';,:;tI......Lf..~:f...J)~J...v..~.... .,d (),ld.Co.. ...Cl...~rt.. .,lQ,Jd.. f':.......... ..... ....2. r.. ...1........ ..... email......Eo..lc.r....[_.I.f..l~f.k~...s....~.X...(le.!.f.~.~ o Contractor .....$.~/...F......':l!J.~~.......If.~.~.~t::::...... Add ress ........~ ..tTh. ~............ ..... ......................... ............. ...... Phone...~............................. .......... ....... .................. .......................... emai I................. ....... ....... ...... .......... ........ ..... ........ ..... ................ ........ o Cons u Itant ...... ............................... ..................... ............. .......... Add ress .......................................................... ......................... ....... Phone............................ .............................. ......... .... ..... .................. emai I........... ................. ......... ..................... ............. ..... .... ........ ........ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: o Site plan o . Floor plans o Building elevations )XI Photographs o Product information o Other .................................................. ............................ If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. ~:t:t~b~~ed .......PG:/~....'J4.1... o ~ertificate of No Mt~i'~1 Effect /.... ~ Certificate of Appropriateness ~ Major review o Intermediate review o Minor review te.- ~ · te~ ~es~~ Property Information j Address of prorrty ...1.I2..rf..22J......?;$.!:...~f?....!.~~ s;;- ~ l.!.~.... .Ct 'J ..,.. ';;!-:!.~1"" f}}:f..?!.................................. .... Use of property... .~. r;,~................................................................... . I Date constructed (if known) ..................................... ........................... Historic Designation o This property is a local historic landmark OR o This property is located in the: o Brown Street Historic District o College Green Historic District o East College Street Historic District o Longfellow Historic District o Summit Street Historic District o Woodlawn Historic District o Clark Street Conservation District ~ College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District o Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: o Contributing o Noncontributing o Nonhistoric Project Type o Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) D Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) ~ Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) o Construction of new building o Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not . change its appearance o Other........... ............. ................. ................. .................. ............ ...... '-~ :.=~.:~.~.~.~.~~.~~.~.~~:~~..~.~!!.~...........fc.c.!..?.h~"""'''J€.~f.5~.....J.r........J......i~1;'Cn.......4........:lJ..c~J Materials to be used .11......1.1....' .... .... .....1..1 II I" 11..1 I" II.... II ..... ...... II ..... ..... II' .... ........... II ..... ..... ... .... .... ..... .... .... ......... ...... ..... ......... ........ ..~... ... .... I' ... ..... ...... .... .... .... ...... .... II .... II ............. ..... .........1.. II Exterior appearance changes ppdadm/H P Handbook! App.p65 v r .. f' "':...~ Staff Report June 12, 2007 Historic Review for 1025 E. Burlington Street District: East College Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Mark Norton, is requesting approval for an alteration project proposed at 1025 East Burlington Street. Last year, the applicant received a Certificate to repair the standing-seam metal roof on the house, and now the applicant is seeking approval to replace the metal roof with asphalt shingle roof. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments The house was built in c. 1890, and is considered part of the Late Victorian Style family. The one and one- half story house has a pyramidal roof with centrally placed gable dormers on three sides, and an enclosed full- width porch with classical columns. The applicant reports after considering the cost of the repairs/~eplacement of the metal roof with metal roof, he has decided to remove the metal roof and install asphalt shingles. The Commission has reviewed the metal roof replacement projects on a case-by-case basis, and has approved replacements with asphalt shingles only where it was found deteriorated beyond repair. Staff has suggested to the applicant to consider using protective coating (membrane) products such as Acrymax. In many instances, the application of the protective coating is much more cost effective than replacement with asphalt shingles. The applicant has agreed to consider the option. Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD o,ffice at City Hall or online at www. icgov. orglH Phandbook. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. -~ ~:t~t~~b~~ted .......... .1;..... ...........L 0...1:...... o Certificate of No Material Effect /.... ;I( Certificate of Appropriateness . 4 Major review o Intermediate review o Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) DOwn er ..... M w:..l(.........N. 9. ..C:~..~........ ................... Phone..... )J.~i.~ .g. J. f.... :~....(~..!..r. ... ..... .... ........... ............ Addr~ss ... ..~1s.....N.t (. :~.~.~~... ...&I./.L............ ....... ... ::d;~ ~ ~.. ~~ ~ ..1...... ..~~......~ ~..t.. ~L ~........................ e mai 1.................. \';:........... 00.......... t?.... T...;;.......:..................... o Contracto r ...~.l. ~..'::':. ~.....Is (f.. n. :.:.1.......................... Add ress .......................................................................................... ................ i'i' ~""::::"'s 'j' ~..=... ~~'i T..... '( G~'~' \'... Phone..................................................................................... ..)..... emai I................................................................................................ o Cons u Itant .............................................................. ................... Add ress .......................................................................................... .,.......... II....... II... II It....... It... II.. .,..... ... II.... II........ II.... II.. I" 1.....1 I.' II... II... Phone............................................................................ .................. ... .... II I" II It' II... II.. It...' I............ II' ..... II 1,.,1 1,."............1... II... II... 11.,1 II... II.. emai I................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: o Site plan o Floor plans 7BUilding elevatio'rl . - Photographs '1- ,... o Product information o Other................................................. ............................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information . 1- Add ress of property .....19. }.~....... C..:.... /) .'t. d ~ c-J.. P..l.... :~. ~ . . II II... .......... 1,.,1... II... ......... II II........... 11.11... II.. .... II I" ...... .....1 II II II..... ..... ..'..1 ...... Use of property....... ..... ........................ n........................................... ..... Date constructed (if kn own) .........I.. .~..~ ~..~.?....... C. ~.'C.~ y...).. Historic Designation o This property is a local historic landmark OR o This property is located in the: o Brown Street Historic District o College Green Historic District ~ East College Street Historic District o Lo!,gfellow Historic District o Summit Street Historic District o Woodlawn Historic District D Clark Street Conservation District o College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District o Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: o Contributing o Noncontributing D Nonhistoric Project Type o Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction,. baluster repair or similar) o Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) o Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) o Construction of new building o Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance o Other.............................................................................................. Project description .. ....... Fl......................... n.... f............'J....... .....:.... ......... ........... ~..... ~.......<.......................... .....r:;;.............................y............................................. .........~j.p-..l~.......~.L...r::............1. ~..?. f.::........{;.../....~...d~.~ ..~.'-)........ ..,,9....... ~f....~....~L~.... ......h<?\J.ph-~Lt .........:1.\!y}L.rJ.._.......i2..~.t..J.!......r. ~.....p~c...S..~'i.(lL:.c........~........~... ....L~.C:,.,(~j.. .~.t...........l..................... ........h, .Q.:fb...;~~1.~c.......:+~....:t~.J.y..c.j7~........Q..~~~!~.~.....Et...T~.:t~......~cyt..c "r~T" .. ......~:k............................... .~................1........... f.Il&............. ~..a..l............ ....l........................................t::........................... ,......... r....... ......o..p.h..~.\~......b .~.f.........IJ......Ltf..c.1..e......../.~f:{;(J.~~.... ..,,[CJ.......po:. ~....t[ ~~1....ldh.:~.l:f.. ......G:'::E.....k...... ~..~. ... .... It I" ..... II II I.... II II..... .... II 11.1,.".,1... II 1,.,1 II ". II 1,.,1 II II... .,.. II... II.. .,... .,... .,... ......... It.. ....... II.. .,... II II... II... II... 1,.,1 I" II II... II...... 11.,1 """ II 11.,1 I"" 11.11 11.".....'.......... II... II I' '.. II' ... .... ... II I" II... II 11.11 II II..... II....... II... 11.,1.,1 II 1,.11 It'll.. I' .,. .... ....... ..... II II. ..... ..... 11.,1 I" .... 1,.,1 I.... I...... It.,., II..... II... I....... ..... ..... I I.... ............. I.... I........ I ........................., I...... .... I... .............. " '" I...... I' I............ I.... '" I..... '" I..... I I... I I......... ..... ......... '" ....... .... ..... .... ...... .............. ... .......,.. ,.,............,......... ,........... ..... I..........,..... I I.............,......... ,..... I.... .......................................................... ....................................... .................... ........................ ............................................... i......................................................... .... ....... I......... I..........,.......................... ,... .... .......... I .............. '" ...... ... ............. ..... ..... ,............ ...., ... ....... ,.... I.. I.........,.. ,......,...., ,...,.............1............................ I......., ... ........ ....... ... ...... .... ..... ...... ........ ....... ......... ........ ......... ......... ....... ........ ......... ........ ....... ...... ......... ........ .... ... ...... ........ ...... ... .............. ...... ...... I I' ....... ........... ....... .......... .... ......... ......... ......... ...... ........ ......... ......... ...... ......... ........ ....... .......1 ....... ........ ...... .......... .... I" ............ ......... .............................................................. I I.......... .... I" ......... ..................... I............ ...... .............. I............................ I............................. I Materials to be used ::::::::::lfi ~ ::~:;.:u:::: :::: "t..(;:; "0::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............... ........... .................. II................ ..... ..... ......,............,..............,.. " I..... II............,..,.. ..,.... 1...,..... I ....,............. I...................... I... ...... '" ........ I..... I" ,.,.... '" ,.,., I' I' .... I..... ,.,. ... ........ I.. I I I....... I.... I I... '" I. I I ,.,.,.,..... '" ... I ,.,.. I I '" ,.,....... ,..., ,.,....,.. " ,.".... I........ ............ I............. ......,............ ,.,.. " ,.,........ ,.......,.... I I... ,......,... .... I.... I.... '" ,.,.. I. I .... .......,...,................ ........... I ...... ..... ....... ................. I.......... .......... ..... I I ,.,............ I......... 1.,.................. ............ '" '" ,......,.,.. '" I.... I ....... ,.,.. 1.,.. ,.,.. '" I..... '" ,.,....... I I.... " I ............ ......... I ........ .... I.... ,.,... I... ..........,.. I .... I ......,... I " ............. ... ........,.. I....... I.......... '" I.............. .... .............., ............... I I.......... '" I....'.... I..... .... I I............., I........,..... . I' ....... I I I.... I......... .................. .............. .................. ......................................... ............... ...... ............... I...... ........................................... ............ ..................... I.................................. ......................................... .................................................................. ............................. Exterior appearance changes ................................................................ ...-.... ..... ..... ........................................ ............................................. ..... .F...................................................................... .. ............. N.. c...v.:!....... t. ~.':: E.........:.!Y.. ........ 0(;1./:: ~. .......... ~.t. L...... ..f?.J..v (,:=...... f-:.~.................................................. .................. ......... ..1 II.. I I I II I' '" I.... I I I" ,......,............ I.... I.... I..'..........,........ 1., '" I I '" I...... "'" I...'. ,..".., .,..,.,.. " .... ......... I ..........., I..... .... I I.................... .........,............... 11.,.......... I I....'............. ....... ........ ... ...... .... ...... ..... ........ ....... ......... ........ ........ ........ ... ...... ....... ... ....... ...... ......... ......... ...... ......... ...... ...... ......... ...... ......... ........... ... ... .... ... ... ...... ...... ..... .... ................ ............... ....... ......... ........ ....... .......... ....... ......... ........ ............. ......... ....... ....... ...... ... ...... ............ ........... ... ... ......... ....... ........... ........ ....... ........ ......... ........ ........ ...... ........ .......... ........ ........ ....... ........ ........ ....... ............... ...... ....... ............. ......... ...... ... ....... ........ ......... ......... ......... ........ ....... ...... ......... ......... ......... ........ .................. ........ .... ......... ...... ........ ......... ............... ........... ......... ...... ... ....... ........ ......... ......... ..... .... ..... .......... ........ ........ ....... ....... ..... ...... ... ..... ....... ........ ............. ........... ...... ...... ......... ......... ........... ......... ...... ... ...... ... ...... ......... ...... ......... ......... ... ... ......... ........... ...... ...... ... ....... ........ ......... ...... ......... ........ ....... ..... ......... ......... ....... ............. ...... ... ...... ... ....... ........ ....... ........ ........... ...... ....... ........ ......... ......... ....... ........ ......... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ...... ......... ...... ......... ........... ......... ......... ................................................... ....................................... ......... ................................ .............. ....... .................................................... ppdadm/HP HandbooklApp.p65 l : ?? I. .' ~. ! 'I, .' J , //\~\i .. ~i-' "I' · ,f .j; ~,l p#' . .:,;: J" \ .1.~ -.'" I "'6~.~.'...~.l. ~~; '~'1 ~~1::~ ,'-;, ~~) ~~ ." C'l . ! \.~~ ~~J 1i:':~ '~ .!.r '"'t;,~ .!;I!i .~ ~ ~, I .':\'"-i .'~ ~ ..~ I ,~ I , ~")J MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 31,2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Esther Baker, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Alicia Trimble, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: John McCormally, Jim Ponto STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Shelley McCafferty, John Roffman, Tyler Rozinek CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. AFTER-THE-FACT APPLICATIONS: Weitzel said that when dealing with after-the-fact applications, the National Trust List Serve suggests treating the project as if ydu haven't seen it before and don't take into account anything that has happened before the actual. application was filed. Terdalkar said that it is in the spirit of being fair to all applicants. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Burford said that Friends of Historic Preservation held a Parade of Historic Homes on May 20th. She said the event had 303 paid attendants and received a lot of good feedback from the community. Buford added that the community would like to see this as an annual event. Weitzel said that in the past, Friends of Historic Preservation has held many open houses to display renovation work and well kept old houses. He said making the tours an annual event would be a great idea. Buford said that the tour was done in conjunction with National Historic Preservation Month. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 923 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said this is a project that the Commission reviewed last year for a new construction of a multi- family buiiding. He said the Board of Adjustment has already. approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the multi-family building. He said the applicant is now seeking approval of a handicap accessible ramp for the primary entrance of the building. Terdalkar said the applicant has provided some material samples for the retaining wall. Terdalkar said that jt is important to make sure the material of the ramp is in some way integrated with the foundation of the structure. Weitzel asked Terdalkar to remind the Commission what the guidelines say for ramps and similar structures. Terdalkar said in Section 5.2, the guidelines were likely written for ramps attache9 to decks and porches. He said the guidelines recommend landscaping around the ramp, locating the ramp on the side of the building, and looking at the historic character of the house and making sure the ramp does not detract itself from the nature of the streetscape. McCafferty, the consultant for the applicant, said she has looked at other means for getting handicap accessibility, but the ramp was the best alternative because there must be accessibility from the sidewalk to the front door. She said they would like to do a flat face retaining wall system that simulates limestone. McCafferty added that it will be problematic to match the retaining wall exactly to the foundation of the building because the materials are completely different. She said that it would require adding a veneer to the foundation and the retaining wall. Terdalkar said the previous application made no mention of texture or finish of the concrete. foundation. He said the guidelines require the foundation to have some type of masonry or stucco; it cannot be just plain concrete. Terdalkar suggested that something must be done to the foundation anyway, so it is possible foundation to be similar to the retaining wall. Historic Preservation Commission May 31, 2007 Page 2 Weitzel asked what was written on the application regarding the foundation. McCafferty said the application said that the foundation will be painted. She added that it is to her understanding that the building is approved as proposed. Weitzel asked if the approval by the Board of Adjustment included the design of the foundation. Michaud said the foundation was fine because the building had already been approved. Toomey agreed that because the plans have transpired, the foundation was approved. Roffman, the applicant, said he was concerned that the plan only shows a 12-inch deep block and doesn't know if that is deep enough for the height the wall needs to retain. He added that he has no problem with the face of the wall. Weitzel said that the best way to move forward would be to specify something of a traditional character. Michaud said that the samples look traditional. Swaim asked what the difference was in the patterns. Toomey said that one pattern had uniform stones and the other did not. McCafferty said that the sample with different sized stones would be considered an Ashlars pattern. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a material traditional, uniform sized blocks with simulated stone face on the retaining wall at 923 Iowa Avenue. Toomey seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Weitze.1 said that Swaim did not move to approve the full application. He added that design of the retaining wall and the accessible ramp itself still needs to be considered. Baker asked if there is any information on the proposed landscaping. McCafferty said it would be very difficult to landscape. She said the retaining wall is on the back side of the ramp. She added the only possible landscaping is something'that hangs over the edge. Terdalkar asked about the landscaping in front of the ramp. McCafferty said she doesn't want to be held to specific type of landscaping. Weitzel said the Commission cannot consider trees and shrubs as a way to conceal the ramp. He added that it will be landscaped and will probably look good. Swaim asked how tall the retaining wall will be. McCafferty said that she estimates the wall will be four to five feet high. McCafferty said that the easement was the only way to solve this issue. Weitzel said that the Commission could make a recommendation to other departments to not have the ramp come from the front. Terdalkar said that it is a health and safety matter to enable disabled persons a way to access the building. Toomey said the position of the sidewalk being up so far from the street makes the accessibility difficult. T erdalkar said a person would have to go to Governor to access the sidewalk. Weitzel said the ramp is not a practical solution to accessibility. McCafferty agreed and said that it would be more practical to have handicap access from the back. Weitzel said the Commission could defer the application and see if the authorities would change their mind on the necessity for front access of the ramp. Terdalkar said the Commission should be reviewing the design and determining whether it is approvable in terms of design or not. Weitzel said he b~lieves they need to find a solution to the problem. Terdalkar said the applicant could approach the building official and get it denied, and then go to the Board of Appeals. Terdalkar added that the ramp placement is about the building and housing code, not historic preservation. Weitzel said that because the Commission is not getting any other options, they feel compelled to approve the project and that is not a fair position to be in. Terdalkar said that this is not the Commission to approve a modification of the ramp. He said the Commission should look at how the design of the ramp fits into the guidelines and the historic character of the neighborhood. Swaim said the majority of the ramp will be in front of the brick apartment building to the east. She said the ramp will be more visually associated with the brick apartment next door and not the applicant's proposed multi-family building. Michaud agreed that the ramp and retaining wall should match the brick apartment next door. Toomey asked how much of the ramp is on the neighboring property. McCafferty said about seven or eight feet. Historic Preservation Commission May 31, 2007 Page 3 MOTION: Swaim moved to resend the motion of the approval of the materials for further discussion. Brennan seconded the motion. Terdalkar said if the project is going to be so confusing, the Commission should wait and seek word from other departments. Baker asked if it would make sense to table the discussion until the applicant can get more details on other options for the project. Toomey asked if the Commission can make a motion of support for the exemption of the ramp. Weitzel said the Commission can make a resolution of support, but it wouldn't be binding. Weitzel said a tabling would be in order. MOTION: Baker moved to table. Swaim seconded the motion. Weitzel said the Commission is in doubt and recommends tabling the discussion. The motion carried 7-0 938 Iowa Ave. Terdalkar said the applicant is seeking approval of the installation of three new widows and two new skylights. He said on the one window will be placed on the west fac;ade between the gabled roof, one window on the north fac;ade, a skylight on the north pitch of the roof, and a skylight on the west pitch of the roof. He said both skylights have already been installed, but the windows have not. He stated the applicant will install a window similar to the front dormer. He said it will be an egress-sized window. T erdalkar added the applicant plans to use metal clad wood windows. Toomey said he cannot see the standard trim around the window on the dormer. He said the trim should match all of the windows on the house. Rozinek, the applicant, said he can add trim to the egress window on the dormer. Terdalkar said the applicant should apply before doing work on the house. He added that applying after- the-fact is a problem and delays the process. The applicant asked if there were any other red flags the Commission saw on the property. Weitzel said the windows issues should be solved first. Weitzel said skylights are allowed in Conservation Districts in non-visible areas. He said the new widows should match the window on the front dormer and the trim around the windows should match the trim on the rest of the house. Baker said a casement window has already been installed on the east side of the house. Weitzel said because it is an after-the-fact case, the Commission should review it as if it never happened. He added that casement windows are not allowed unless it was part of the house's style. T erdalkar said the window on the east fac;ade should be a horizontal to match the windows below it. Michaud asked if the window would be double-hung. Weitzel saiq it should be a single-hung window, but rotated 90 degrees. Weitzel said the Commission shouldn't get bogged down in the original. He said what is being installed should be sympathetic to the style of the house and the character of the neighbor. He added that every project cannot be treated as a restoration. Terdalkar said the Commission approved the dormer to look like the one in the original photograph. Terdalkar said the applicant has applied for two double-hung windows in the attic. He said there has been a new casement window installed on the east fac;ade that was not included in the application. Terdalkar said the Commission may want to look at the casement window that has already been installed. Michaud asked if a hopper style window would work on this project. She s~id a hopper style window is hinged on the bottom and opens inside. Michaud said it is horizontal and won't stick out like a casement window. Historic Preservation Commission May 31. 2007 Page 4 Terdalkar stated that the project the applicant is asking for should be clear enough for the Commission to approve. He said the application did not include a casement window. He added that if the Commission can find a reason to approve, then the Commission should approve the casement window. Weitzel said the Commission should look at approving the proposed windows on the north. far;ade and west far;ade. MOTION: Toomey moved to approve the trim on the front dormer to match the rest of the trim on the house, the two proposed windows should meet egress; with the trim matching the rest of the house, and the installed casement window be rotated 90 degrees; with trim to match the rest of the house. Brennan seconded the motion. Rozinek asked if it would be okay to remove the casement window on the east far;ade, and install four windows on the attic level to match. Terdalkar said there is not enough room on the east far;ade because of the smaller gable. . MOTION: Michaud moved to amend the previous motion to match the window size on the east and west side of the building and have the windows open to the inside of the house. Baker seconded the motion. The motion fails to carry on a vote of 3-2-1 (Brennan and Toomey opposed, Swaim left prior. to vote). Toomey said if the casement window was rotated 90 degrees, it would be difficult to tell the difference between a casement and hopper style window. Weitzel said casement windows are only allowed if the style of the house allows it. Terdalkar said the guidelines disallow casement windows if they are not original to the house. Weitzel asked for an argument for and against the project. Brennan said he doesn't see how it the window, as it is, detracts away from the appearance or character of the house. Toomey said that if the window was rotated to be horizontal, he could not tell that the window wasn't original. Weitzel said this guideline was debated extensively. but when the casement window is open, it is obvious that the window is not consistent with the character of the house. He added that this is what the City Council approved and the Commission needs a good design reason to grant an exception. Terdalkar said the Commission is looking at the project after-the-fact and should be fair in applying the guidelines. Weitzel said if it is possible to grant an exception if the Commission has a clear reason. Weitzel said the motion is to approve the two double-hung windows in the north and west dormers that would match the front dormer with trim to match the rest of the house. He said the second part of the motion is to approve a window in the east dormer of the same size, but rotated 90 degrees. Motion carried 5-0 (Swaim left prior to vote). Michaud said the applicant is still concerned about the railings and skirting. Terdalkar said the previous certificate the applicant applied for the porch to match what it looks like in the photograph; it has already been approved. He added that if the applicant makes any changes in material, size. or dimensions. Weitzel said if the applicant should talk to Sunil immediately if he has any questions. Rozinek said that he would like to alter the back stairwell. He asked how long and how it would take to get this project approved. Weitzel said the Commission could probably approve a design that meets the guidelines at the next meeting on June 12th. MINUTES FOR MAY 17. 2007. Baker asked if on page three, third paragraph, last .sentence if the second reference to wood should say "aluminum." Terdalkar said it should be switched from wood to aluminum. Weitzel stated that the part where Pam is speaking should say "would qualify" and not "would work qualify." Historic Preservation Commission May 31,2007 Page 5 MOTION: Baker moved to approve the May 17, 2007 minutes, as amended. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0 (Swaim. Brennan. Toomev. and Michaud left prior to the vote). Buford said she had a problem with casement windows and is something you have to work out with HIS. She said she ended up having to put a casement window one her own house. She said the brick opening was only so big and had to make a custom casement window. Terdalkar said Buford had a requirement for eg ress PRESERVATION PLAN: Weitzel asked how detailed the discussion should be. Terdalkar said the Commission should get a head start on the discussion, so they don't have to wait until June 12th when Marlys will be present. Weitzel said the Commission should discuss anything that needs to be clarified before Marlys is present. Weitzel said there should be an executive summary. Terdalkar said it is already in the works. He added that the executive summary will be limited to ten pages. Michaud said there seems to be quite a bit of repetition. She said that there could be a summary for all of the goals. Michaud added it is tedious for anyone to approach. Weitzel agreed with Michaud and thinks there should be universal goals that apply to all neighborhoods, and then have separate goals for each individual neighborhood. Buford said the problem in Iowa City is that most of the historic areas are residential. She said that affects how people view historic preservation. Weitzel said it would be good to have a specific section addressing preservation concerns in a commercial district. He said adding a section that outlines specific advantages through preservation would give commercial property owners an incentive for considering preservation., Buford said when Glenda Castleberry came to Iowa City and talked about what happened in Sioux City, she was very specific and direct about what could be done with historic properties and incentives available to them. She said the Preservation Plan isn't clear about the incentives available to commercial propertie~. Michaud asked if College Green was part of the 1992 districts. Weitzel said East College Street and College Green was considered part of College Hill, but was split up later due to rental concerns. Michaud said that it shouldn't be too hard to get the sorority and fraternity institutions to see the benefits of historic preservation. Weitzel asked how much .power the Commission has in rewriting the Preservation Plan. Terdalkar said staff and the Commission has power to revise the entire plan. He said that much of the plan has already been cut down. . Trimble said the Commission needs to be careful because not everyone is going to read the entire plan, especially if the person is looking at a specific district. Weitzel. said he is concerned about losing content during the skimming process. Michaud said the full plan doesn't need to be cut down because the executive summary will be distributed to the residents. Weitze' said the full plan would be at the public library for reference. Buford asked how the Commission will handle questions about the sample size from public meetings. Weitzel said Melrose had about 30 people. Terdalkar said Marlys will do a public hearing open to the entire public. Terdalkar said Marlys has extended the survey beyond what qualifies for the 50 year mark. He said buildings up to 1960 are eligible for being considered as historic. Brennan asked if 1960 far enough or should it be moved to 1965 due to the 15-year lifespan of the Preservation Plan. Historic Preservation Commission May 31, 2007 Page 6 Brennan said on page 36 there are several concrete proposals and several speculative proposals for new historic districts, but there is no discussion on what additional resources will be required to facilitate implementation of these proposals. Buford said the Preservation Plan doesn't give enough community analysis of the North Side. Weitzel said it is a very public document, so you have to be careful about naming too many names. He said Mercy Hospital's plan for growth is much different than the Commission's. Terdalkar said he will ask Marlys for more opinions. Brennan asked at what point the public should be notified that a historic district is underway. Terdalkar said this should be a city-wide issue because it will be part of the Comprehensive Plan. He said it will be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, so it will be in front of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission as a public meeting. Weitzel said an open procedure would be a good idea. He said when a district is being considered by the residents of a district, a public announcement is in order. . Terdalkar said the position of the Commission has been to notify the public once they are notified by the residents of the district. Buford said the Commission will have to help' residents propose a new historic district. She added that people don't have the time or energy. Terdalkar said that is where educational perks will help. Buford said the economic benefits would be a catalyst for a lot of changes. She said there is not body of evidence. Weitzel said the Commission would be getting a CLG to look at the market analysis. Buford said the building that holds the Antique Mall is for sale. Weitzel said he doesn't know what to do about it. He said the Commission would have to get a survey done on the building. Weitzel said the Commission should have specific comments for Marlys on the 12th of June. Terdalkar said to e-mail comments to him~ ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was ,adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Minutes submitted by Doug Ongie PCD/mins/hpcl5-31-07.doc = o .,.... r:Il r:Il .,.... a a~ o · u 5 ~ =~ .s ~ r- ......~= ~== C~N ~~ r:Il = ~ ~ ....... ~...... ~< .,.... . o ...... r:Il .,.... == ~ ~~ ; ; ~~~~~~~ 8 ~~o I ':, ~o~~~o~~~ II') I s ~~ ; ; ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~; ~~ o ~~~~~~~~~; ~~ e.g Q) 0. E- >( UJ g~bb~gbg;2g~ 0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\ ~~~~~~~~~~~ MMMMMMMMMMM "0 Q) ~ r.fl Q) ::s ...n.D (,) ~ s ~'E Q) =~::E ~~~::E~ ~Q).DOO Q)$<ZZ .. ~ < II II II ~II II~::E ~~OOZI .c -; = 5"0 ~~_ Q) ~ ~ ~ = ~ ; = 5 ~ e ~ s ~ = ~ = U .c +of .; 5 = .- Zw ~ ~ ~ = CJ .S= ~ ~ .;: = ~ ~~U~~~~rJ'1~~~