The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-28-2007 Historic Preservation Commission IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, June 28, 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. Deferred Applications: 1. 919 and 923 E Washington Street B. Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. 617 Ronalds Street 2. 515 E. Davenport Street 3. 831 E. College Street C. Minutes for May 31,2007 and June 12, 2007 4. Other 5. Collection of Comments on the draft Preservation Plan Update 6. Adjourn J owa City Historic Preservation Commission IlalL 410 I,'. \V,I,l1ington StreCT, Iowa Citv. L\. ')22.10 MEMORANDUM Date: June 28, 2007 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Re: June 28 Meeting Agenda: Deferred Item 919-923 E. Washington Street The Commission requested Tim Toomey visit the property to inspect the structure to assess the feasibility of repair. Last week staff and Toomey visited the property. In Toomey's opinion, the structure can be repaired and made functional. Toomey suggested that after properly supporting the structure, the east and west walls could be pushed/pulled back in plumb. The applicants should provide permanent interior supports in all possible corners. Toomey also suggested the use of cross braces on the front (garage-door header) to provide additional strength. Staff has informed the applicant about the site visit and assessment. Imva Citv Historic Preservation Commission [lall, 411l I': \V;\,h1l1gtlll] Street, ]l>wa 1\. .12240 MEMORANDUM Date: June 28, 2007 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Re: 617 Ronalds Street - Applicant's request to consider a revision of the project that approved at the May 31 meeting The Commission approved a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed alterations for the house at 617 Ronalds Street. The Commission approved the project including: 1) replacement of four existing wood windows (#1 through #4, two each on east and west elevation near the north fas;ade, see attached sketch) with new metal-clad solid-wood windows that are slightly larger in size to meet egress standards, provided: a. the sill level of all the windows on the second floor is maintained; and b. the new windows match the existing windows in type, sash profile, and overall appearance 2) removal of an existing wood double-hung window on the west fas;ade (second floor) and installation of a new awning style metal-clad solid-wood window that is square or vertical in proportions, to be located to the south of the existing window (#5) 3) removal of an existing closed window opening on the west elevation, to install a new awning style metal- clad solid-wood window that is square or vertical in proportions and an exhaust fan vent (#6) 4) replacement of the rest of the existing windows (including a casement window on the south fas;ade) with new metal-clad solid-wood windows that match the existing original windows in type, size, sash profile, and overall appearance The applicant is now seeking approval for the replacement all the existing double-hung windows that are 30 inches wide with new wider double-hung windows. The applicant intends to use wider windows (approximately 36 inches) to replace the windows on the front fa<;ade. The applicant has submitted a set of specifications with window sizes that were approved and the window sizes that the applicant intends to use. The applicant is also seeking approval for an alternative of not installing the awning style window on the bathroom (west fa<;ade, first floor) that was approved previously. :;; .-, I~:: I - 1,---"' ~ '" ~~, -4,.'-~j;~--~n --"'::4;.;~_ , , c ~~ @ -i I -' ~ , ~ , ~ -~ . "" ~ t... "2\- c:~ '-. ~ . " ~ <>, ., 1.. ~E!::q~:___._ ?:7?"-;C;c r,e,'I/.> f~ ;;)0/3 @) II '&," L-J.28. , 'J\ ..~ ., r' n, Il,";. /} /\\ \ .' ) /1:// \ '(\ d. ,\;\1j7 ) If';," / \ '/ ~\\'-.j ~ .,.-1.) 3'~' I>~,.,f' }?' ,t-, . '~ ,\ c.. (:i. .;.. I .1 \ -j , I! '_ \' ' I ..' J ~. J~ I '\Ii "I ~I '\i ~ f 'Ii " ~ I f'll I rr'l z..~ -r ~ /I ' dfh- 30 ~ Z;~i ~+t~ VV1. .~ II CY r-r- . ~d1h- Otb Propo~ w @ L-~ l~" I ~1 ~7 ~@ ?!: -'.~_:;_::'}Of!-'jLL.i~ '_"-. ___ > __ - ~ ~ " M :-> . tJ /i ' jJt. J \ I L \"' $ ~ w 5/ ,fff;":fl~f - {1' 5-A 1(' J Gf 7 /(e, "q{el s a.1I ?"!,- '{ IISnuJ<:; N f~~~ r t ;2ti" -------.-/f'fJ'l-. I i. ~ 21"1" " , I.,.J ~,,;., .~~. T"'~~~8" f-"-"~__,__,, )f k-..-_____Ic-ll".____..... {"" ,\ \ @-"" :: L , I, ,/ ~ il ,\\ \\ . ,,~ \ I i V / \J" y,X \/ I," " ( \-;) . I 'j .\ I ~~' ", .. / el-I _..L -L /...) 1 I I .. .J , \- \-..-... "~- ...- - 1 i I '~1 \ i //'8" \.1) ,.\ (..-) ---. -I ,1,' /..J '- , <' " "-.J .,' " l~' """ ,~ . '.. >' . , . :\ .\ ' hI /i\ II; ...I '.. .,::y. c< I -=-1 t. -- ~ ~ 1/ Ill" \ [ ~ All 2 f I.{ {-~{'.": '"'.1 W/d/; (1.\fe('~~xr"(,lo~ ---..-._----~..- -+----- ! ( ( /"1\ i ~/ ( ., ~ci \.t- r/ If "____. ~'r' .y t./p' ) .f , . ; . ~ I i c: ! 't ~ . L....; , r 1f:@: ',. I,"; (Co,) . ...-.<.""--......--~~~_'"_-"""~w'_~,.,." /" I.,', _ ,/ iJ \ I -' I b/Al"/,)?Ici.!) t~ i i i t _ ~__! iI_ '; - ,V ! t J ...;:- " ' 1 I J @ ~kS+t, '\.N], WcJff, - 2>0)1 q Iu.. _ 2,60 -Prvr&~~ V\T~I') '- J~1~~~ QUOTE BY: Liz SOLD TO: Prestige Properties - QUOTE #: JLlZ01318 SHIP TO: PO#: PROJECT NAME: Ronald St. REFERENCE: Mike's Option BOOK CODE DESCRIPTION DIM-CCD3760 Custom Clad Double Hung, Rectangle Frame Size = 36 X 60, Mesa Red Exterior, Interior-PrePainUExtra-White/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 5 1/2 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Beige Jambliner, Standard Double Hung White Hardware, Cam Lock(s), No Finger Lifts, DP 35, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Mesa Red Screen, PEV 2007.2.0.120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW sJtJ-IdtW"j w~J()W U/t'd u's LOCATION SIZE INFO Line- 1 Front Main Floor RO Size : 36 3/4 X 60 3/4 LINE NO. QTY D li Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' 2 Line- 2 2nd Story Front RO Size : 36 3/4 X 56 3/4 D if DIM-CCD3756 Custom Clad Double Hung, Rectangle Frame Size = 36 X 56, Mesa Red Exterior, Interior-PrePainUExtra-Wh ite/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 51/2 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Beige Jambliner, Standard Double Hung White Hardware, Cam Lock(s), No Finger Lifts, DP 35, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Mesa Red Screen, PEV 2007.2.0.120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' 2 Line- 3 S. Kitchen RO Size: 63 1/2 X 53 1/2 o 0 u u Mull Main Item Custom Clad Double Hung, 2 Wide Frame Size = 62 3/4 X 52 3/4 , Mesa Red Exterior, Interior-PrePainUExtra-Wh ite/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 51/2 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Beige Jambliner, PEV 2007.2.0.120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' QQ-1.12.277 cust-037000 Quote Date: 6/21/2007 PaQe 1 of 5 (Prices are subject to change.) Drawings are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale. All orders are subject to review by J ELD-WEN JLlZ01318 - 6/21/2007 - 15:58 Last Modified: 6/21/2007 LINE NO. LOCATION SIZE INFO Line-3-1 (A1) RO Size : 32 1/8 X 53 1/2 D D Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' Line- 3-2 (A2) RO Size : 32 1/8 X 53 1/2 D D Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' Line-4 Main Floor & 2nd Floor (Egress) RO Size : 36 3/4 X 60 3/4 D D Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' BOOK CODE DESCRIPTION DIM-CCD3156 Custom Clad Double Hung, Rectangle Frame Size = 31 3/8 X 523/4, Mesa Red Exterior, Interior -PrePainUExtra-Wh ite/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 4 9/16 Jamb, Beige Jambliner, Standard Double Hung White Hardware, Cam Lock(s), No Finger Lifts, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Mesa Red Screen, DIM-CCD3156 Custom Clad Double Hung, Rectangle Frame Size = 31 3/8 X 523/4, Mesa Red Exterior, Interior-PrePainUExtra-Wh ite/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 4 9/16 Jamb, Beige Jambliner, Standard Double Hung White Hardware, Cam Lock(s), No Finger Lifts, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Mesa Red Screen, DIM-CCD3760 Custom Clad Double Hung, Rectangle Frame Size = 36 X 60, Mesa Red Exterior, Interior-PrePainUExtra-White/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 5112 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Beige Jambliner, Standard Double Hung White Hardware, Cam Lock(s), No Finger Lifts, DP 35, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Mesa Red Screen, PEV 2007.2.0.120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW QTY 4 QQ-1.12.277 cust-037000 Quote Date: 6/21/2007 JUZ01318 - 6/21/2007 -15:58 Last Modified: 6/21/2007 Paqe 2 of 5 (Prices are subject to change.) DrawinQs are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale. All orders are subject to review by JELD-WEN LINE NO. LOCATION SIZE INFO Line- 5 Main Floor Dining RO Size : 38 3/4 X 48 3/4 D D Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' BOOK CODE DESCRIPTION DIM-CCD4148 Custom Clad Double Hung, Rectangle Frame Size = 38 X 48, Mesa Red Exterior, I nterior-PrePaint/Extra-White/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 5 1/2 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Beige Jambliner, Standard Double Hung White Hardware, Cam Lock(s), No Finger Lifts, DP35, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Mesa Red Screen, PEV 2007.2.0. 120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW QTY Line-6 Stair (Temp) RO Size : 24 3/4 X 60 3/4 ~ iJ Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' DIM-CCD2560 Custom Clad Double Hung, Rectangle Frame Size = 24 X 60 , Mesa Red Exterior, Interior-PrePaint/Extra-Wh ite/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 5 1/2 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Beige Jambliner, Standard Double Hung White Hardware, Cam Lock(s), No Finger Lifts, DP 35, Insulated Low-E Tempered Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Mesa Red Screen, PEV 2007.2.0.120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW Line- 7 2nd Floor Top of Stair RO Size : 36 3/4 X 56 3/4 D fr Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' DIM-CCD3756 Custom Clad Double Hung, Rectangle Frame Size = 36 X 56, Mesa Red Exterior, Interior-PrePaint/Extra-White/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 51/2 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Beige Jambliner, Standard Double Hung White Hardware, Cam Lock(s), No Finger Lifts, DP 35, Insulated Low-E Tempered Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Mesa Red Screen, PEV 2007.2.0.120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW QQ..1. 12.277 cust-037000 Quote Date: 6/21/2007 JLlZ01318 - 6/21/2007 - 15:58 Last Modified: 6/21/2007 PaQe 3 of 5 (Prices are subject to change.) Drawings are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale. All orders are subiect to review by JELD-WEN LINE NO. LOCATION SIZE INFO Line- 8 Kitchen East Main Floor RO Size : 36 3/4 X 60 3/4 D if BOOK CODE DESCRIPTION DIM-CCD3760 Custom Clad Double Hung, Rectangle Frame Size = 36 X 60 , Mesa Red Exterior, Interior-PrePainUExtra-Wh ite/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 5 1/2 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Beige Jambliner, Standard Double Hung White Hardware, Cam Lock(s), No Finger Lifts, DP35, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Mesa Red Screen, PEV 2007.2.0. 120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW QTY Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' Line- 9 2nd Floor Office RO Size : 36 3/4 X 60 3/4 D if DIM-CCD3760 Custom Clad Double Hung, Rectangle Frame Size = 36 X 60, Mesa Red Exterior, I nterior-PrePainUExtra-Wh ite/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 5 1/2 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Beige Jambliner, Standard Double Hung White Hardware, Cam Lock(s), No Finger Lifts, DP 35, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Mesa Red Screen, PEV 2007.2.0. 120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/4" = l' Line- 10 2nd Floor Bath RO Size : 24 3/4 X 28 3/4 " CCA2428 Custom Clad Awning, Frame Size = 24 X 28, Mesa Red Exterior, Interior -PrePainUExtra-Wh ite/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 51/2 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Venting, White Hardware, Nesting Crank Handle, DP 30, Insulated Low-E Annealed Glass, Argon Filled, Fiberglass Mesh Brilliant White Screen, Traditional Screen Stop PEV 2007.2.0.120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/2" = l' QQ-1.12.277 cust-037000 Quote Date: 6/21/2007 PaQe 4 of 5 (Prices are subject to change.) Drawings are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale. All orders are subiect to review by JELD-WEN JlIZ01318 - 6/21/2007 -15:58 last Modified: 6/21/2007 LINE NO. LOCATION SIZE INFO Line-11 Main Floor Bath RO Size: 123/4 X 143/4 IT::]] BOOK CODE DESCRIPTION QTY Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/2" = l' Custom Clad Geometric, Direct Set Rectangle Frame Size = 12 X 14, LEG-HIGH= , Brilliant White Exterior, I nterior-PrePaint/Extra-White/SW7006 Nail Fin (Standard) 4 9/16 Jamb, 4/4 Thick, Casement/Awning Detail, DP35, Insulated LowE Obscure Annealed Glass, Argon Filled, Traditional Screen Stop PEV 2007.2.0. 120/PDV 5.241 (04/06/07) PW QQ-1.12.277 cust-037000 Quote Date: 6121/2007 PaQe 5 of 5 (Prices are subject to change.) Drawings are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale. All orders are subject to review by JELD-WEN JLlZ01318 - 6/21/2007 -15:58 Last Modified: 6/21/2007 Staff Report June 28, 2007 Historic Review for 515 E. Davenport Street District: N / A Classification: Local Historic Landmark The applicant, Marlin Ingalls, is requesting approval for a proposed project involving repairs, exterior alterations, demolition, and new construction at 515 East Davenport Street. The property is identified as a local historic landmark. The applicant is seeking approval for: 1) repairs to the rock-faced block foundation to match the original, 2) removal of a non historic cellar entry-door enclosure at the back of the house, 3) relocation of the existing basement stairs and construction of a new set of stairs for new rear entry 4) the demolition of an existing outbuilding, 5) construction of a new garage that is similar in size to the existing garage at a new location Applicable Regulations and Guic;J.elines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Foundations 4.7 Windows 4.8 Doors 6.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 6.2 Outbuildings 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments The original house was built in 1881 on a large lot facing North Van Buren Street. In 1919, it was moved to the current location with a changed orientation and the original lot was subdivided. The existing rock-faced foundation appears to be the result of the move. The applicant reports that the south foundation wall needs repairs and plans to reuse the blocks or if necessary replace the deteriorate blocks with new blocks to match. At the same time, the applicant plans to remove a non-historic entry enclosure for the cellar door on the south fas:ade, and relocate the door to the west to replace an existing basement window on the foundation of the existing sun-porch. The applicant is also considering converting the existing door opening into a basement window and replacement of another altered basement window. The applicant has indicated that the doors and windows will be reused if s~vageable or alternatively is seeking approval for installing new doors and windows to match original. The proposed alterations are in general consistent with the guidelines, and staff recommends approval. The applicant is also requesting approval for the demolition an existing outbuilding/garage. As the Sanborn map (1933) used in the Iowa Site Inventory Form shows no building footprint where the existing garage stands. The outbuilding was either built or relocated to the site after 1933. The structure has been built with ship-lap style siding, and board and batten door and stands very close to the east property boundary. The garage has a front-gabled roof with open rafter eaves and no significant architectural features. The applicant reports that the minimal foundation of the structure is in disrepair and is causing the wood at the bottom to deteriorate. The outbuilding is not an architecturally outstanding structure and is not mentioned in the Iowa Site Inventory Form. Staff believes that adapting the structure as a garage requires significant repairs to the structure including the foundation. As the current code requires a minimum of 3 feet setback for outbuildings, reconstruction of the garage at the current location would not be allowed. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to build new garage on the southwest comer of the property with the garage door facing east. The proposed new garage will be similar in size as the existing structure, measuring approximately 11 feet x 19 feet. The applicant is proposing to use a roof proftle-front gable, eaves with open rafters-that is similar to the existing structure, but the roof pitch that matches the existing house. The applicant is also proposing reuse as much material as possible from the existing garage and a new simulated tri-fold, smooth panel overhead door. Because the applicant is proposing to remove an existing outbuilding that has no significant architectural features and marginal structural integrity, and is proposing to build a new garage that is in general similar to the existing structure, staff believes that the project is consistent with the guidelines and 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~~ed .....&.I.I.3..I.p..~)......................... o Certificate of No Material Effect iij(" Certificate of Appropriateness o Major review o Intermediate review o Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) o Owner ..JY\.~.~.~..~......R..~.....;r..~..~.A:.~~..?.... Phone.......~.L~.........J.~.I..~..~..~..Q..~............................... Address ..s:-.(.s:....~.;....Q.~.y..~.N.f..9..G.-:.J.......$.:t... ...d:.g..~.~..C\i:j.....:M........~.?::.~.~.~...................... email.....l1..\.l.~.~.~~U~..G)....U.(.9..~.~..~..~d.u...... o Contractor ..s..~..~r.\..ro~~.Q.~&.'f.................... .Address ..;).~.~..~.....H..~Q:!~....Q~.~...$.Y.:?...................... ...~.~~....~}.r.~.t~.......J..~.~.'i.9............................ Phone......~..\:..6.'":!:$..~...................................................... email................................................................................................ o Consultant ..V~...~.~.~~p..~..;f..HY.~............................ Address ....?:.?~.9....l~J.~4~~...I~.\....................... ...~.9...'t.:!!r..~.~.~.\.~.......~~.....S..~27.:.~.!....................... Phone. ...... J.. .!..<J... ...;?.~..~.:.:..~.}:.}9.. ..... ........ ............... ........ email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: I!r Site plan o Floor plans fJir' Building elevations [!""" Photographs o Product information ut Other..€~.!.~.~~"f..~....!.~~.:t................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property ..$.~.~.....~.~.......o.~.~.~?-:?:P9..~J:....Q'-t, Use of property.......J~9.~~~.~~....................................... Date constructed (if known)...........l.~.~.L.................................... Hisjoric Designation ~ 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 o College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District o Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: tJ 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) o Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) g/ Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) ~ Construction of new building ~Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance o Other .............................................................................................. Project description .Ib~..~.t.9.J~...lN.~.l~cf.....\.h~....~tt).t....d....f~~...~!?.~~~~.~.~...Q.~.1h~.....~~.~:t...~Y.',sJ....S.Q~ 6'\d~ ..o..:.~~...+~...r.-.~.~\...o~....t.~...~~i.i'~S.~.~r...A.~~....Q:~.~':!5.....~.\?1.~~.!-:\1.~.v.J:.t...s.~S:{~.~p.) <1 .~~..~~~,~g..~...~~.\.....~....~~..\2.lt.~....T~~),....~~.~.~....I~.~~9.\y.:f,....f..~~..s..~....~~....:tk....9:'i.~~S:..~YQ.-/ ..c."'~y'~~...,k\~~....~9..l!..~..~.v.."d.e...~.~.fl"S.S.~.k!.!ii.^J.J~w..~&A,"!;~.."",~.l\JIl"'~ .t:...;.s:l.~..\\ft.'{....f.t~e,~..J.:6.:tJ.s..-e...(.......~~v.\A...k2~.~~..~~l~....~~....f.!;;,.,.i~.~~~J...~y'~...~.Q..6$.I..b(e C4-~ .SJ..w'\~!.l~.~....~~~f....l..W~t~..:b.e.~~..f?:r..S...~.L~;lt\I.).s.~~...~.~.....~~~.$S.I1.'I...L;~..~..T~~..f.l~~~ , ,_____m~- , , ~~~.~~...a.r.\...~..6.~.~...~~.~.e....~..d.\...Jo.~..~.Q.,.t\..I...ng,..~b.!.t.~...lQ~~..l.9...'!.\....~..~.~..~eeJ ~...~....~0,).~..tJJ.2.~.t....H.~..~...1~...~'t...t,J.~.~~':C....M)....~'S::\\'~~"f.c,?,..r..s:h.A...A.~i.h:d9!-V .!~s..Q.'f...~.~~...CA.:t....:t~..~...\.~~~.~~.u......A...y..~...~~t.~...~\\\....l~:lo;:J...:.~~....~...h..&.~~~ f:.~~...~.\1~~....~.~.~...cJ..~.1..~.~~...~~.k...~...~~J.\...i3.-&~~.M~.~.,...A.J.~~i:.c~.~.y~~ ~ ~ I) .~.~.~Q'~""~~"'~"9.L~~~~...c1~.~..:ili.~1.~.~...~.~..\.~...dJ.~ft:f~5~ .~.~\...b~..~~~.~..C\.~.~..~.l.~,t~b...~l~c.9..~,(~~~.~..Ig.~.I..l1...\~...~...S.~.. ~tt..:R- 'I' fu..~..lC?:\:.L~~..~':~..p\~~.~&...:k~~J....11:.~,:~~..M~~.~..p1.~.~d..~r.~..~...~j).f..9.A'?-~,. ~.!-.~.~..~.\'t.;-k.:'!:1~.1.\S...Mr.LlL.~.~.~~~J...~~.~~Y:1~..1.~.{)'!t.ra~..f.A~.~..k.V):}.Q~J...:\Q.~v Gd a ctee€ 5e'-U~ t(~, Materials to be used" . {" \ .fQ.f....~...&""&.f'.::\,~fu.9.i~tt\2.~...6..l~..?...~\.\.\..b!?c..!d.~J..~~Jir..~.~ \ {l ~f.k~.,...Ai;~r~.~...~ikk,v.d...4~\\...\1t',!!I1t\.1l.l&;..,...~....sr...~.~........~ $, 2.ee, ...............~~.~?....~~....b~..m.~~~Y.A~!..~~....!.~..5~A~~-&~.~..~.J...~.!.d....l!...~ I .{)~.~...l.~~..~.~~~~\:!-::Y.~\\...kB...~~.Y.'S'.s!.~.~.&::f....~..~~I.~\A...~~...tY.~;L..~\.*,s9...~...~ ..::t...~.tl..II<t.t:r6!1....."""\\.&.i:.....Ce{,!.~i~~~'t).~.~....m.~~Lr1l5..Q".\.t.\1Q.\!.%h..6u M ~ ~~~;t\.~.S"~~'f.~.{2.'i.~.sI.n{.~..slf..~~~....WI.~~...~.~\..9.~~t~~6~~~''''~r..~.~.~..~~~, C\~~ +'r-~.~...~..N4.~~1.~l..u.s.~..~~.lS...t:~:9S~....~....Cd"~6!'K.!.~S..~.~......'I::.\X"l.S...:&;~...~..7;-h...1o\- S ~.Q..~l.b.~............. ................................................. ........ ........... ........ ...................... ......................... ............................................. Exterior appearance changes \ ~~~...~~..h~..~.Q....~.~N15~...\~...~~...y1;~~.~..\J.t.€....c.f."...~..~~~~L,,)JJ ~(' ...~~~~9.~.s..,...A~b...~~~.~~~....~~.~~...~~:f..~.:k...1\&....b.~'!u~i-:..~.~~9.~~....~ll( be \ l ''-J, . \'" ',\ I'" . .c..aj~3:.~...€.....~~...4:~~'t...Q.{..fjlJ:r!~......~y..~.bJ..ke..L...A...~~~s.~...!.~......~..&;V..\.\JQ.~5 .~~......0.h.'~~...k~!'.s~.~..~~,>\!~k}!Y.I(.k2.d.l!,.rJ\uQw\.<t..c9i.5u,s:\:~.~~ .,;!r.iA.'>),~e...t.l!M.c1..""',.,'1~....I....~ll'L.lb-\.\.".Y.>.....\.~:!,!il..u.~.kr.1~,.1\'l~.,..r!ll\<!.\f..u..\~ +~ .\o.,.,~.....u....!\?&-\"::J.ro.~,~..~f.t.~"\.h.n..~...\,,...ltJJ."'+.kf,;,..l..<,.5:~J.k..~. ~ .6j;'r.~'\.~..~~f.~t;..~.~.~~\..h~.~...~.~~~..s.~..~~...~~..ckM.\.,0,'<1-.M..J:k- .O':i..\;.c.'f.:?~\..t.;K:c9.%.~~~..~~.\\..1~.~\.k~...k..r.M~.~~t...'6..~..~~, ~..€attx.~~..~:r....~.t.-~\..k-.~.~..{.t.~.~.~rJJ...A@f~~:-{..~.t(.".e...:.\o..I~~~..b.~Y:IY...~~ 0 (\ .~~..p.l'r.~~.J.JI.t)I".t.sL$.~~uds.~W...J.~.f.!1:.w..L~~...v.\..IM.\,\.,'~r...!J::\l..;dt.d."" ";'f- J .~~~:~.~~\~~~~~~~~:~~t;~~.r~~~:;:~~:~l~'&. ~ ~ se . ~ l....>~'(\ A-\ so (jh'cJ v l &e b ...;::--\\J\. t (J,- Y'c..J.~~. e;r see. c...~ f ~ '\-1 A--l <) '^-5 <-\. "f\ ~ ;Ao~ ~J\c:':~'SONV\_.\ .lJ~ c..fJ ~ i\~V'c\' I he.. ~tL>'\q~l"J~"-' b-Ase~~V:X €.M~'f~ v..-tL) he.. ft?MI\Ou~ o...~ f\ M-c;1fe. e~lc>d ~ A-(€' tocg ~v'C;:>Vl&.d)_ Ile...- C~VW'~-e.- +r\~ ~\ be COPl eel ::tY'<>l'V\. ~.. ~~ '-t-Y' \~ "' \.J eo UMOJ e O~S 6S:61'-SS:S:-61f OAlO! 'slI!^IOJo:> pOOJ ~OP!104 OL!:Z 6UPS9U!6us f^ (l N'Vld NOI1'VONnO.:f VMOI 'All::> VMOI 133!11S 130dN3AVO '3 SIS o ........ t.N 00 t.N 'SNOI1IONO::> ONIlSIX3 ~ SNOISN3V/IO llV A:J1!J3A m31.:/ : 310 N -' -' 3S :::E <( w <( '" ~~ .'. ~~ LL.I-~~?t;co ~@5~~<~ CLO~l=!C5G ~~;::ci~~ >- w :z 7 ~ ..., U N <:> :z ;: Vl x w 5 / ~gl / ./ ~ o o :z ;i; 'b I '" !l~ ? Co ..., I 'io -' -' 3S g -' '" w U :3 "- "-' '" ,-t I '" 10 .l-,9l on I 'io .9-,LI ~ I ;.: ./ / I '" / ~ 8 NO .Ol-,L 'b '" '" I 'ix> r- 3: 00 0 I 0 N i t- "-'-' U-' :5~ "- w'"' "'u g '" ~ 9.~.. H3111W 'Q HUHU"'" ~~ -....... ~1fI___.......,~___w.. _....,.:..:::..r:. -:. --=; ~~ :: ;:"'...:.= o -1__~"'IIIW.w-......" \)oo~ 'O~ ~t l.) ~ ~ .%~ ..,' /" ~ ~ "l-,9r .,ll-J 1 .9-,l r .O-,V l,9-,l r .g-J MOONIM MOONIM .9-,91 0- I b ..., "- => t 'b ., ..., 11 co ., 'ix> L .6-,l "L-,L --r-r "v-,L f .v-,l _ 0:,~'\::; ~~ <:> >- :z "-' ;::z Vl:::E xx "-'u .0-,9l ... i!: Ill::.!, !>ll: ~ 10 -' <( U E. 5~ a. " ~~ :::;::: .. .~ 25 ~ ""z", ::l o IJ.. '"' U g '" c.3 :z o U 10 .O-,l ----T---------- 1- 50' I I \ 1 \ I \ , \ 1\ \ II \ 1\ \ 1\ I ,I I ,I P II rp ,! \ 1\ \ \ I ~ 1<6 r I ""fI/'dj..\ l<t )C.II ~ ) ~4 I , \ "- ~~. I I-J. "- ~ ~ ( I "" ' ~_.~ \ ,-a ". . ~ - "" . " " :3' = ~ - - ~ NORTH ~ - - - - ~ - - I' ~ \ ~ \ I J / ( \ I I t'I') 00 t'I') ...... o o DAVENPORT STREET 99.~~O~ ~~~ ~~G I :/ ~ ~ ~ '\~ "- I i ~ (I , ( I I I / I .4~~ . IV I '-" / 1-.))' \ EXISTING HOUSE ---I I I I I GvJosed 1 Svj\,) POf~~ I '1. E'F.,-!\T\ r\ 5 ~/Oc.c.(\V~y e ~ cold 99.~~O 1 €/Jt('f ro.s.sl11~ A.lIN E d-r\) I -......... e.~~O~ 9,\ IV ,e~lI'\ul,)e. ) "" ~ ..-'~ -.~ ~~ ~ - - .,.. - - LEGEND . FOUND IRON PIN - ---<IQQ)- - EXISTING CONTOUR - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY/PLATTED LINE 5 10 20 vj engineering 2570 holiday road coralville, iowa - 319-338-4939 SITE SURVEY PLAN 515 E. DAVENPORT STREET IOWA CITY, IOWA scale 1"=10' drawn by GfF date " ......~, ~'j-~ --_._- - -----"'-' - '::~-.. ."R_'_'-.'.-' ._..._"".........,-:::~"~' - --- -:. ~...::-- ~ -. ,-- VI" 'C' r'.- ,,~. ~ c> r.+\.... .s ~ J.-e...- d/'~ .' ~, "rt#;;:- ,/' '''~ Af!-!!'!P~~j. ~/"" " <<';Z"'" ..tf:Y ,/ J'r>;.~, '-:::' ,.6' /' 1I~~'-~-"" - ~, /;,1"' ~:/' ~I-:"-:-:- l '~~ .f" F'. . ""', I ~, /__ _" - -, I ~ ;Y ,c/- - . -'\ /_.,. _ _ 1"= I "'i ~f' .' ':-- - "'. '~..'~,./::/l ' ,:::=1 ' ",~ ",,/jl' -- --, '" -' .-- . -.~ . -" .' j. ....' , " " I, i--=-- , j . t~;..,.. ! ___u [ - . t;AS~ S~J-e Staff Report June 28, 2007 Historic Review for 831 E. College Street District: College Green Historic District Classification: Contributing Structure The applicants, John and Peter Hayek, are requesting approval for a demolition at 831 East College Street, a contributing property in the historic district. The applicants have removed a decorative broken scroll pediment above the hipped dormer on the front fa<;ade of the house on the property. The applicant states that they removed the pediment because of leakage problems and tornado damage. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments The house was built in 1901 with various architectural and stylistic influences including Queen Anne, Classical Revival details. The Classical decorative elements are used adorn the entire house including the porch details. The broken scroll pediment was used to embellish the generic hipped dormer and a similar pediment is also used on the east fa<;ade on a window. The guidelines disallow removal of significant historic architectural features. The applicants indicate that they the pediment is salvaged. Staff recommends that the applicants should explore options-additional flashing, using alternative materials to eliminate the leakage problem, and replace the pediment. r "'plication for Historic:: r . few Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a histol-ic 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.org/HPhandbook. 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.6~LkQd7. d. o Certificate of No Material Effect ,Iii Certificate of Appropriateness o Major review o Intermediate review o Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) John Hayek and Peter Havek ~ Owner .d.. d.... ..... ........... ..... ............. ............ .....~... ...... ...... ........... Phone....} J .9.0}?~.9..~.9.?................................... ...................... 120 East Washington Street Address ............ .... ............. .... ....... .~.. ...... .... ....... .... ...... .... ..... ...... ............ ...... .~.().~~. .\.~ ~X'.. .~.().~.~. .~.? ~ ~~~.~??.~.................... email....... ..j,!~.~y'~.~@I.~~.~~l.: ~g.~l~............................. ................. Jon Milder Milder Construction Co. Ja Contractor ................ ...........:.................................................... Address...P. :.0.:. .~g.~.. }}<?~..................................................... .................}?~.~..\.i.!y:...I?~.~...?~~~.~......... ... ... .... .............. 3 19/248-0083 Phone............................................................................... ............... email................................................................................................ o Consultant .......... .................. .......................... ................. ........... Address...................... ......................... ........................................... ....................u................................................................................... Phone.............................. ................................................. ............... ...........................................................u............................................ email................................................................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: o Site plan o Floor plans o Building elevations o Photographs o Product information o Other......... ............. ... ................ ...... ......................... ...... If the proposed Pl-oject 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 83 I East College Street Address of property......................................."'......................... ...,,"..... Iowa City, Iowa .........................................................,.....,... .,................ .............,...-.......... Residential Use of property.............................."..... . 1900 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 j) College Green Historic District o East College Street Historic District o Longfellow Historic District o Summit Street Historic District o Woodlawn Historic District o Clark Street Conservation District o College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District o Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: o Contributing o Noncontributing o Non historic 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) ~ 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. changei~ appearance o Other ................ ................................ ........................................ ...... ~.~''''"''''~-===''~''''''''''''~'''''''=-=<;:'''-~_-=.,.=.'''"c.=,o.,,,,,,,',r-'''-'',,,,,---c,,,.>,,,"-.,,,,.,=== '_.__._-~ ~- -- ~- -~-- Project description .s.e.\!.~r<:t.l..\F9.P.tI,1~. .<lg~),. q~1 r(:~) 11.tra.ct 01,. .I\'.lil ci ~r.~' () l1~tr.Llct i () n,.. reI11()\.e~i .'\ lieco.ra ~ ive. ~~l)I~. tI-OI11 t he roof 0 f ..t.l.1~..pr.~p<:.r.ty':...~.~Y~I~~.ly~~~~~~<:\at considerable expense, we had Boyd Crosby rebuild and renovate ....... .................................................................-................................................................................... . .... ~.~~.i ~. .?e.~.?~.~~! .~~.. f.e. ~.t.LI.r~.~. .':v.11.i ~.11.11.a.?. .s~ ~i.c)LI s.'!'. ~ ~t~ ,:i .~I.'~ t.~~... .~.?\~~~ ~I~:.. \V.~. .'la\' ~. ~>I).~ r.i.e.':~.e.~. .I~~ ':s.i .st en t ....!.e.~.k..a.g~..i.'.1..t~~..!~~~!.?r.t!1.~..11.()LI.S.~..il1..~ll.~..\..i~il~i!y~)~'!1.1i~..~~.l)le, apparently as a result of the penetrations into the roof and as a result of the backing lip of water bei'~i'~~Ci .ti'~~.ga'l).ieP..The.gahie.was..agii;ii.dailiaged... .... 'i';~" t'i;'~ 't~~',~~d'~" ~ i' t i~~"~ P ;-'i ;~g" ~ f~ i ()06:....W~. 'I:~;~~'~ ~'~d' t i~ ~'g~ L~ i'~:'" \V~" S t ~i' i' 'i1'a ~e" ~ t:" bt';t"1 t"; s~.. a ga~'il':' .i.ll..................... ..................................~...... .......................................................................... .... ......."....................".......................... ....... ................... ............... ... ........................ ....~.~t.~.~.i?~~~~.?..~.?.~19.!.ti.?.11:.~.'1?.':v.~..~~~?.~1I.d...p.r.~fer to not have to reinstall it because of the difficulty of preventing I eakage and t he expense i nvo I~:~'ci"i~'~"~~~t ~ ~~.ii.;;;;..~{ti~e..ga l;i'e"a;iCi 'j'ts' ;:e;;ist.ui'iat.i.oii.... jO.;1........ ....... ... . ...... ........... . .. ~.......,.. ............. .......... . ..... ... ... .. ........... . .. ....... ... . .. ...... .. .... .~.~!?.e.~ J~~.S.f.?~~ ~~~.! Y... ~.~t.~ ~~.~~.~ ~~.. ~!1.~~..~ '.1~.. ~.? s.t.?r .t!.~i :".. ~~ ?~~ I.d... ~?~.~~~. ~ I~ ~ . r.~.~1?~ ..?~~ .~.?' ???.... ~.~. pI.a..'.l..t .~........................ .... ~~I rr ~ .e.~~! ~.~.~. .!.~~!.~. ~.P..P..~ ~~.~ ~ ~? !.1. .~.~ t.I~.. ~.I~..a. ~1? ~.~.i t. ~r.? 11.1 J?~~.I~. .~~ .I.?~~:. ................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................ . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . ~ . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. ... .. . .. . . . .. . . ~ . . " . . . .. ... . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . ... . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .... . .. ...... .. ............ ............. ...................................... .................... ...... .. .................. ..... ... ............. .. ~........ .......... . .... . .. ......... .......... ... ... " .. . .. ......... ..................... ....... ...........~..........~. ~.... ..... ........... ~ ................~................. ......................~...................... ~..~........... .................................... Materials to be used .... ....... ....... .......... .~............oo ....... n... ~.......... o.....~........... .... ........~......... ~."".",..", ~'~".".'" ................................,. ........... ..... ~"'OO'''' .... .......... ...........~............... 0......... ............... ............. .............0................. . ~........... ............................. ~""""""''''''''''''''''''..''''''''''.~'''''''''.'''''.", ..............................oo..... ........... ................ ................ .. ... .............oo......... ~. ................ ...... ...... ....... .................. .............................................. ................ ....... ...... ...... .......... .............................................. . ........... ...... ...... .... .~"."""" ............. .......... ..... .......~........ 0......................... ...... .............. .......... ....~............~...... '"~''''''''''''''.''''''.'''''''.~'''''''.''''''''' ........................................... .......... ............ ...... ~... ....... ............. ..... ......................... ~ ..~... 0.... ........................... ~...... ............ ...... ........ .~. ............ ............................... ....~.................................. ................ ... . ..... ............. ...... ............. ....... ....................... ~""""'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''' ......... ... ....... ...... ................ . ........ ..... ............. . . ...... ..... ...... ... .............. .. .... .. ...... ....... .. ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . .... . .. .. . ... . .......... .. .... ... . ..... . .. .. . .. ... .. .. .. . . . . ... ... . . . .. ... .. .. . ... .. ... .. .. .... ... . ... .. . .. .... .. .... ... . . . . ......... .. .. . . . . ... . .. ..... . . . .. ... . ... .. . ... . . . ... . . . .. . .. . . ~ .. .. . . . '" .. .. ... . . .. Exterior appearance changes .... ... ... .....0............ ................... ........... ................ ...... ... .......... ............. ,........ . ~..,.....oo. ......................... .... ....... 0... . 0........................0....... ... ..... ... . ....... . . ..., ...... ..................................... ................... . ~............................................... ............ 0................ ................ ..... ........ .........., .. ................ ..... ~, ......... ... .......................' .... ...... ... ~........ .................................... .............. .. .......... ......... ...... ~... ................ ... .... ~........ ................ ................... . ...... ....... ............ ...... ... ~........ ........ ............... ........ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . .... .. ... . . .. .. .... . .. . . .. . . ... . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . .... .. . . . ... . ... ... .. . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .... . . .. ... . ... . .. .. . .. . .. . .... . . ... . . . . .. . . . . .... .. . .. . . . . . . . ... .. . . .... . . .. .. . . . . . . ... ... . . ... . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. . .. . ... . . .. . ... ... .. . .. .. . . .... . . . " . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . .... .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ~. ... . . . .. .... . .. . ..... .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. ... ... .. .. ... . . . . . .. .. . .... . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ~ .... .. . .. .. . .. .. . ... . . .. .. . .... . .. .... . . ... . . .. . . . .. . .. . . ... . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. ... .., .. . .. .. . . .... . ... .... . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . ... . . . . ... .. . . . .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. . .. . . '.' . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. ... .. ... .... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ppdadm/HP HandbooklApp.p65 HAYEK REAL ESTATE 120 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319/337-9606 June 8, 2007 Mr. Sunil Terdalkar Planning Department City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: 831 East College Street Dear Mr. Terdalkar: As directed by Jan Ream in the city's building department, I have prepared and I am submitting a demolition application. Please process this application and do let me know when I should appear before the commission. Thank you for your help in this matter. Very truly yours, J8ek JHW: eb Cc: Ms. Julie Hayek (wi enc.) 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 Forum List Serve query provided responses from cities how they review the project. Many Commissions treat the work as if you haven't seen it before and don't take into account anything that has happened before the actual application was filed. Terdalkar said that the goal is to be 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 building. 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 it 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 attached 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, as the foundation surface needs to be treated, so it is possible use a similar treatment for 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 uniform sized blocks with a simulated stone face on the retaining wall at 923 Iowa Avenue. Toomey seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Weitzel 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. Terdalkar agreed and said a person would have to go to Governor Street 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 requirement of the ramp to come from the front of the building. Terdalkar said the Commission should be reviewing the design and determining whether it is approvable in terms of design or not. Weitzel said he believes they need to find a solution to the problem. Terdalkar said the applicant could approach the building official and if it is denied they have an option appeal it to the Board of Appeals. 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 proposed multi- family building. Michaud agreed that the ramp and asked if the retaining wall should match the brick apartment building. 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 rescind the motion of the approval of the materials for further discussion. Brennan seconded the motion. Terdalkar said if the Commission feels that more information is necessary to make a decision, the Commission should wait and ask the applicant for alternatives or clarification. 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 property is a contributing structure in the College Hill Conservation District. He said the applicant is seeking approval of the installation of two new widows and two new skylights. He said on the one window will be placed on the west fayade between the gabled roof, one window on the north fayade, 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 would install a window similar to the existing one in the front dormer. He said it would be an egress-sized window. Terdalkar added the applicant plans to use metal-clad wood windows that would be consistent with the character of the house. Toomey said he cannot see the standard 4-inch trim around the window on the south dormer. He said the trim should match all of the windows on the house. Rozinek, the applicant, said he could 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. Rozinek asked if there were any other red flags the Commission saw on the property. Weitzel said the house will need skirting and a railing, but the window issue should be solved first. Weitzel said skylights are allowed in Conservation Districts in non-visible areas. He said the new widows on the west and north gables should match the window on the front dormer and the trim on the new windows should match the trim on the rest of the house. Weitzel said the windows that are recommended are metal-clad wood. Baker said it seems 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 may want to consider it as if it never happened and use the recommendations. Guidelines to review the change. He added that casement windows are not allowed unless it was part of the house's style. Rozinek said the problem is that there are not enough photographs of the fayade. He said the decisions are being made based on the one photograph that he obtained. Weitzel said the Commission has guidelines, and they must follow the guidelines. He said if the applicant had a photograph showing a casement window on the east fayade, then the Commission would allow it. He added that the Commission generally does not allow casement windows. Terdalkar said the window on the east fayade is not the right type or size. He said it should be a horizontal window and as seen in the photographs should match the width of windows below it. Michaud said she has vertical windows on the third story of her house. Terdalkar said that a vertical window does not fit the fenestration scheme on the applicant's house. Michaud asked if the window would be a double- hung. Weitzel said 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 Historic Preservation Commission May 31,2007 Page 4 project cannot be treated as a restoration. Terdalkar said the Commission approved the dormer to look like the one in the original photograph. Michaud said one of the recently reviewed applications the Commission approved casement windows with simulated artificial mullion. Weitzel recalled that it was an egress window. Rozinek said the windows in his photograph show a stained glass pattern. Terdalkar mentioned that the original windows do not have stained glass but colored glass is used with a divided light pattern. Weitzel said you can have a simulated divided window with nine-over-one panes. Terdalkar clarified that the applicant is not asking for casement windows in the attic; he has applied for two double-hung windows to be installed on the west and north gables. He said however, a new casement window has been installed on the east gable that was not included in the application previously approved. Terdalkar said the Commission approval is required for this casement window. Michaud asked if a hopper style window would work on this project. She said 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. Weitzel said the Commission should look at approving the proposed double-hung windows on the north and west gables. He asked if the Commission would approve double-hung windows in these two locations. Toomey asked if the Commission is looking at two double-hung windows on the two gables to match the front window. Weitzel agreed. MOTION: Toomey moved to approve the trim around the window on the front dormer to match the rest of the trim on the house, the two proposed windows on the west and north gables to meet egress; with the trim matching the rest of the house, and the installed casement window to be rotated 90 degrees; with trim to match the rest of the house. Brennan seconded the motion. Trimble asked what the original request was for the casement window. Toomey said it wasn't in the application. Rozinek asked if it would be okay to remove the casement window on the east facade, and install four windows on the attic level to match. Terdalkar said there might not be enough room for a double-hung window of the size. Weitzel said the gable on the east side is smaller than the other two gables. Michaud asked if the window on the east facade could match the square window on the west side of the porch, and it could be a hopper style window. Terdalkar asked if Michaud is saying that the window east facade should be the same size as the square window on the west side of the porch. Michaud said it would be similar to some other elements of the building. Rozinek said the window the west side of the porch is not operable. Michaud said it could be a hopper style window. MOTION: Michaud moved to amend the previous motion to have a hopper style window on the east gable to match the size of the window above the porch on the west fa~ade. Baker seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry on a vote of 3-2-1 (Brennan and Toomev 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. He said the only way you could tell that it was a casement is if the window was open. Weitzel said casement windows are only allowed if the style of the house allows it. Terdalkar confirmed that the guidelines disallow casement wincJows 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, there would be no way he could not tell that the window wasn't original. Historic Preservation Commission May 31, 2007 Page 5 Weitzel said when the casement window guideline was put in, it was debated extensively, and the argument was when the casement window is open; you can tell it is a completely different window from a completely different era. He said that was the argument behind it, and that is why it was disallowed. Weitzel said certain houses from the 1920s on had casements, but others did not ever have them and the Commission took a very strong line that they did not want that. He added that is what the City Council approved, and the Commission should make a real good reason to approve it if the Commission is not going to follow the guidelines. Michaud said because it is a vented bathroom and the window will not be open. Weitzel said that is a use consideration, not a design consideration. Terdalkar said the basis for allowing alternative designs, not exceptions, is in 3.6 of the guidelines gives the Commission flexibility in exceptional circumstances. He said the reasoning for allowing casement windows in the guidelines is for egress windows where there are bedrooms. He added that this is not a bedroom; this is a bathroom and the Commission should discuss why there should be an exception. Weitzel said it is possible to grant an exception if the Commission has a clear reason. Toomey said because it is a bathroom, an exception could be noted as a safety reason not to have a window that folds back into the room. Weitzel said the motion is to approve the two windows in the west and north dormer to match the front dormer and to put on trim that matches the rest of the house on the front dormer and the other two windows. Weitzel asked if the motion specified anything about the divided lights. Toomey said to match the front dormer, so they would just have to be double-hung windows. He said the second part of the motion is to approve a window in the east dormer of the same size that has been installed, but rotated 90 degrees and have trim around the window to match the rest of the house. He said for safety and design reasons it would be an awning window that opens to the outside. Toomey said in a bathroom, for safety reasons, you do not want a window to open to the inside. 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 they need to be reviewed and approved by the Commission. Weitzel said the applicant should talk to Terdalkar 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 would be able to review the project at the next meeting on June 12th if a completed application is submitted before the deadline. 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 confirmed. Weitzel stated that the part where Pam is speaking should say "would qualify" and not "would work qualify." 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 egress 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 1ih when Marlys Svendson will be present. Historic Preservation Commission May 31, 2007 Page 6 Weitzel said the Commission should discuss anything that needs to be clarified before Svendson 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 properties. 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. Weitzel 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 the 50-year mark. He said buildings built prior to 1960 qualify 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. 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 Northside Neighborhood. 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 about it. Brennan asked at what point the public should be notified that a the plan recommends historic district designations for some areas. Terdalkar said the plan recommendations at this point only identify areas eligible for further survey. This plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan the update is a process for the amendment of 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 Historic Preservation Commission May 31, 2007 Page 7 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 would 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 1ih 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 == = .... VJ VJ .... S S"E = = u y ~ ==~ .S ~ t-- "'y= ~ == = t~N ~ ~ ~:;: ~< .... ~ = ... VJ .... = .... I I ~ ~ ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< in 0 I I 0 0 I I M I I ~ .... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< -- I I 0 ..,. I I OC ~ ~ ~ I ~ S2 >< >< >< >< >< 0 0 I 0 ,." I oc >< >< >< ~ , S2 >< >< >< >< , >< >< I M I '" 0\ 00 t"- t"- OO 0\ t"- 0\ 0 0\ 00 E .~ S2 S2 S2 S2 0 ~ ~ 0 - 0 0 0; -- -- -- -- ~~ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t.t.l -- r<'l r<'l r<'l r<'l r<'l r<'l r<'l r<'l r<'l r<'l r<'l b ";j = = E ~ .. ~ ;:I - 101 0 ... E :c .. .. cu ... = = 0 101 0 E ~ ~ .. = '" U .c: ... '; E .:c .. i: = ... = 0 'u ;:I ... .- ~ 'i: 101 ... 101 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ Z l:l:l l:l:l U C l:l. V} ~ ~ "0 cu ... '" cu ;:I .."oD C,) ..., e ~'E cu =~;:E -S_cu;:Et<:l cu~lloo ~ll<ZZ c...< II II II ~IIII~;:EI ~><OOZI MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 12,2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Alicia Trimble, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Brennan, John McCormally, Pam Michaud STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Amelon, Mark McCallum, Mark Norton, Mike Oliveira, Marlys Svendson CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Mike Oliveira, owner of 617 Ronalds Street, said the Commission recently reviewed a window replacement for 617 Ronalds. He said the original motion stated that all the windows at 617 Ronalds would be the same height. He added that the window width was not in the revised motion, which was approved. Oliveira said the Commission's discussion emphasized the windows being consistent all the way around the house. He said the Commission's decision will make the front and side windows will be different widths; today all of the windows are the same width. He asked the Commission to revise the wording of the motion, so all of the windows will be the same width. Weitzel said the Commission would most likely have to revisit the application. Miklo said procedurally, if the intent was wider windows, then you would just acknowledge that, but if there would be debate or discussion it would have to go on as a separate item. Toomey asked if there was a conflict with windows of the same size. Oliveira said the first motion included the width of the windows and the second motion did not. Terdalkar said the motion by Toomey was never seconded. He added the windows in the east and west gable need to be egress size and the other windows that do not need to be egress, don't need to be changed. Oliveira said he had a different interpretation of the minutes. Weitzel said he thinks the Commission should revisit the application and do a full review. Miklo said if there is a clear majority in the Commission that recalls that the intent was to include the width in the motion; then the certificate could go ahead and amend it. Toomey said the Commission did not dictate the size because it is determined by the egress. Terdalkar said egress is required in the bedrooms. Toomey asked if the windows are consistent right now. Oliveira said all of the windows are consistent right now. Weitzel said because all of the windows have termite damage, he doesn't think the Commission would have a problem with changing all of the window widths at once. He said the previous discussion on this project was about making things match. Miklo said the width of the windows on the front of the house would increase 4 inches to match the egress windows on the side of the house. Ponto said he recalls discussion of the first and second floor windows matching. He added that on the front egress windows are not required, so those windows should remain the same width. Oliveira said the symmetry would be thrown off if the windows on the house are different sizes. Ponto said there should have been discussion on the impact of the door if the windows in the front were changed to meet egress. Miklo said the certificate is as written and it needs to be on an agenda if it is going to be revised. Terdalkar said the Commission could have a special meeting on the fourth week of June. Historic Preservation Commission June 12, 2007 Page 2 CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 705 S. Summit Street and 811 E. Colleqe Street. Terdalkar said these are routine projects that can be approved by consent. He said the Commission should ask questions if they have any concerns. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Swaim seconded the motion. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0. 923 Iowa Avenue Weitzel said the application for this project was deferred. Terdalkar said there are questions regarding the necessity of the guard rail, which would change the requirement for the height of the railing and the requirement of balusters. He said the applicants also need to figure out the grading requirement for the ramp. Terdalkar said the Commission asked about other alternatives that could be explored instead of the ramp. He said there is no provision for variance or exception for handicap accessibility. He added that handicap accessibility must come from the primary entrance. Weitzel asked if other alternatives are acceptable. Terdalkar said it doesn't have to be a ramp. 919 and 923 E. Washinaton Street Terdalkar said that these are contributing properties in the College Hill Conservation District. He said the applicant is seeking a demolition of a garage that is shared between the two properties. Terdalkar said the applicant has not stated why the demolition is needed or what will replace the structure. He said the guidelines state the Commission should look at the condition of the garage, the architectural significance, and its integrity. Terdalkar said he has been to the site and believes it is possible to fix the garage. He said it is a modest structure and does not have any architectural significance, but was a typical structure for that time period. Weitzel said the duty of the Commission is to review applications that are complete. Terdalkar said he informed the applicant on how demolition applications are reviewed for accessory structures. He added that he talked to the applicant about what the Commission is looking for on the application. Dave Amelon, the applicant and contractor, said the back of the garage has ship lap siding. He said the windows are about two inches out of the square in the back and doesn't know how he would get them back into place. Amelon said he didn't know the application was incomplete. Terdalkar said he went over the requirements when he met with the applicant. Miklo said there needs to be evidence the garage is damaged beyond repair. Amelon said he doesn't know how the back of the garage would be able to move over two inches. Toomey asked if the back of the building is racked. Amelon said the back of the building is racked. Toomey said that nailing or screwing in plywood on the corners will straighten out the garage. He said if the plywood isn't enough, using a come along from corner to corner will pull it up. He added that these garages are not difficult to straighten out. Ponto asked what the applicant intends on building if the garage is demolished. Amelon said he intends on turning it into surface parking. Weitzel said for the Commission to issue a demolition certificate, the guidelines state that plans must be submitted for what will replace the existing structure. Terdalkar said future plans are required for primary buildings, but accessory buildings are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and do not require future plans. Historic Preservation Commission June 12, 2007 Page 3 Miklo said these garages usually serve as a buffer between lower density housing and apartments. He said these garages have a role in this neighborhood and should be preserved. Swaim asked if there would be a change in parking availability between surface parking and if the garage was functioning as a place to park cars. Amelon said the garage is hardly wide enough to park a car in. Miklo asked how wide the garage is. Terdalkar said about 16 feet. He added that the garage wasn't designed to fit two modern vehicles. Swaim said her main concern is that if the garage is repaired, will it still function as a garage for today's cars. Weitzel said the main reason for garage demolitions is that they are too small for a modern car to fit in. He said the Commission typically needs to have evidence of damage beyond repair before a demolition is issued. Miklo said the garage is certainly large enough for one car. Ponto asked if the applicant owns both properties. Amelon said yes. Ponto said sharing the garage isn't an issue. Amelon said there is a concrete wall going down the middle of the garage. Miklo asked how tall the wall is. Amelon said it is about six inches tall and is not structural. Weitzel said the guidelines do not cover the issue of garages as a buffer. He said the Commission should be looking at if the garage is repairable, if it is significant enough to retain, and what the effects on the neighborhood will be if a demolition is allowed. Miklo said there isn't enough evidence right now to know if it is repairable or not, so it would be best to defer the application. He added that an inspector should go out and look at the garage. Weitzel said a site visit is in order, as long as the Commission has permission from the property owner. Amelon said the Commission has permission. Weitzel asked Toomey if he would give a report on the garage. Toomey said he would. MOTION: Swaim moved to table discussion to the next meeting. Ponto seconded the motion. Ponto said it would be wise to get more information. 1025 E. Burlinqton Street Terdalkar said the property is a contributing structure in the East College Street Historic District. He said the applicant is seeking a replacement of a metal roof. Terdalkar said last year the applicant applied for a CMNE to repair the metal roof. He added the applicant decided it was too expensive to repair, so now the applicant would like to replace the roof with shingles. Terdalkar said he suggested to the applicant that he use a material, such as Acrymax, to paint the roof. He said this all depends on the condition of the roof. Weitzel said Acrymax is not the only option; there are other liquid membrane materials. Norton, the applicant, said he is okay looking into the Acrymax option. He said he is looking into repairing the roof. Toomey said the Vonnegut House was coated with the Acrymax product and has held up for over five years. He said if there is any damage or holes in the roof, you can put on a coat and then put down a nylon-type fabric before the second coat; that will patch up the holes. He said the finished product looks good as new. Terdalkar asked if the Commission is now looking at the application as a repair, instead of a replacement. Norton said he would like to look at the cost of repairing the roof. Weitzel said the Commission should table until they hear back from the applicant. MOTION: Swaim moved to table discussion. Baker seconded the motion. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0 Historic Preservation Commission June 12, 2007 Page 4 PRESERVATION PLAN: Miklo said staff wanted to make sure the Commission is comfortable with the Preservation Plan before releasing it to the public. Svendson said it is the longest plan in generation she has ever been involved with. She said that the format is similar to when the previous plan was done in 1992. She said that the final version is still in the works and will include about 25 photographs. Svendson said Iowa City has one of the most complex preservation programs in the state of Iowa. She said the plan is a community plan. Svendson said she believed it would be worthwhile to keep the general format the same, so there could be a comparison over time. She added that she did not see any new initiatives that showed the need for new goals, but rather new objectives within the goals. She said she talked about the importance of communication through the growth of the Internet. Svendson said she would like to hear what the Commission has to say about the neighborhood sections and the appendix. Miklo said spelling corrections and comments need to be submitted in writing. Svendson said the members should turn the entire document in with their corrections. Weitzel said other than typos and formatting concerns, the concept of neighborhoods was getting mixed up. He said the language in the Longfellow Neighborhood was getting overlapped due to all of the historic and conservation districts within it. Svendson said she tried to call it the Longfellow Historic District wherever she could. She said she would go back and make sure she was consistent with the language. Svendson asked if there were any specific areas Weitzel noticed. Weitzel said at one point there was a reference to the "Dearborn Neighborhood". Svendson said if she talked about neighborhoods as a variation in language, then she tried to put it in lower case. Weitzel said somewhere there should be a definition of Historic District, Conservation District, and City Neighborhood. Svendson said she could do expanded footnotes. She added that people in Iowa City like to read footnotes. Swaim said we think of them as potato chips. Weitzel said the Preservation Plan is very detailed and does a good job of updating the goals. He said it should last for at least 15 years. Swaim said on page 85 there is a chart with completed objectives and future objectives. She said under Woodlawn doesn't have a newsletter. Svendson said she thought it was part of the Longfellow Newsletter. Svendson said it should be an open zero. Swaim said there probably won't be a newsletter, so it should be blank. Ponto said the definition between a City Neighborhood and a Historic District doesn't always match. He said on Brown Street there is a newsletter for the Northside Neighborhood Association, but it is not the Brown Street Historic District Newsletter. Svendson said it should be a solid circle in the chart. Swaim said the Preservation Plan is difficult to critique because there is so much detail. She said in the recommendation memorandums is where the Commission has a lot to talk about. Svendson said she wanted the Commission to see the raw recommendations that came from Clarion Associates. She said she took whole sections of the Clarion recommendations and put them in the document in Appendix F. Swaim asked about how the Commission should be rethought in composition. Marlys more information came from interviews and discussion than from Clarion's recommendation. Svendson said those are specific things to do to advocate change at the state level, so the Commission has more flexibility at the local level. Marlys asked about circulating the plan to the state office. Sunil said it has circulated around the state office and there weren't too many comments that came from the state office. Marlys said her recommendation was to make the Commission smaller with four at-large members and five from a Historic or Conservation District. She said section D is a summary of A, B, and C. Weitzel said difficult to get representatives from each district. Ponto said he likes a smaller main document, but with very specific appendices. Weitzel said the lighter main document or executive summary should be distributed widely, but with the appendices at the Public Historic Preservation Commission June 12, 2007 Page 5 Library. Svendson said the idea of creating two lists of Certificates of Appropriateness in the appendices, one by district and the other by sequential awarding, could not have been done 15 years ago. Ponto said on page 015, he is a little concerned about individually listing the names of the people interviewed, and not just the title or position of the person. Svendson said the comments would remain unattributed. Svendson said people made comments that were community-wide. Svendson said she didn't interview everyone, but still had a pretty good cross section. She added that Clarion thought she had too many interviews. Swaim said other university buildings were tracked up until the 1960s, but Greek houses were only tracked up until 1940. Svendson said WWII seemed to be the cut off point for new fraternities and sororities. Swaim said if all university components were tracked until 1960, then the Greek buildings should go up to 1960 as well. Svendson said she can extend the period for Greek houses up to 1960. Terdalkar said Brennan made a comment at the last meeting about planning for the next 15 years after 1957. Svendson said there is usually a lag time. She said it is very difficult for people in the preservation movement to look back a full 50 years. Svendson said an exception would be Dr. Van Allen. She added that we don't know which building to associate him with. Weitzel said the Van Allen Building on campus was built after he discovered the Van Allen Belt. Svendson said the National Park Service won't consider the building as a national landmark. Svendson said the University of Iowa's Master Plan shows that the university is well on its way to a commitment towards historic preservation. She said the university's consultant encouraged historic preservation when a case could be made for economic benefit. She added that the university currently has potential for historic preservation, which she couldn't have said 15 years ago. Baker asked why some of the objectives do not specify who is responsible for carrying out that certain objective. Svendson said the last Preservation Plan included tasking abbreviation at the end of each objective. She added that she did not include tasking abbreviation because there is a staff person for Friends and the City's staff member has been raised from quarter time to half time, so there is more capacity for completing the objectives. Weitzel said, as a community, Friends of Historic Preservation should help out more with these objectives. Miklo said the Preservation Plan should be sent to Friends. Terdalkar said Helen Burford has a copy and some comments ready for Svendson. Svendson said she knows this is volunteer time, but would appreciate any comments the Commission could give. Weitzel said this is the Commission's chance to impact preservation for many years. Svendson said Miklo suggested that at the end of the introduction, there should be five important points to summarize what document is all about. She said the fives points are: tell the good news, streamline the process, focus on neighborhood preservation, tap into the economic development of the city resources, and learn from ourselves. She said there is a need for neighborhoods to talk among one another. Svendson said that it would be good for the Commission to go to the City Council and heighten the image and role of preservation. She added that the Commission needs to keep the good news in front the Council as much as possible. Miklo asked when the public forum should be for the Preservation Plan. He said the report will go on as an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Weitzel said they should come back in week or two and decide then. MINUTES Swaim said on page three on the very top line "resend" should be changed to "rescind." Weitzel asked if Swaim approved a "material tradition" on the previous motion. Terdalkar said because the Commission is going to revisit the applications, it would be a good idea for each commission member Historic Preservation Commission June 12, 2007 Page 6 to revisit the language of their own motion. Weitzel said he doesn't remember Swaim saying material tradition. Swaim said she probably said a traditional-like material. Weitzel said he doesn't remember anyone saying material traditional. Terdalkar said there were two materials being discussed, ashlars sized blocks of different sizes and uniform sized blocks. Swaim said traditional should be taken out of the motion. Terdalkar said it should be uniform sized blocks instead. Toomey said on page four, the reason to grant an exception for a casement window is not in the minutes. Weitzel said there is some funky stuff in the language of the minutes. Weitzel said the Commission had a discussion about turning the casement window into an awning window, and he did not see that argument in the minutes. He said he doesn't feel comfortable approving the minutes tonight. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Minutes submitted by Doug Ongie PCD/minslhpcl6-12-07.doc = ~ .... ~ ~ .... S s-o ~ 100 U 8 = ~ ~~ .... ~ t-- "'~Q ~=Q > ~ N ~-o :l 5 I.;: ~< .... 100 ~ ..... ~ .... == M ~ I I ~ ~ ... ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... 0 I I 0 0 I,Q I I ... I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I 0 0 I I r-- ~ I I ~ ~ ... ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... 0 I I 0 0 III I I M I I ~ ... ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... I I .., I I QO ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 0 0 0 I <'l I QO ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 0 I M I '" 0\ 00 r-- r-- 00 0\ r-- 0\ ;:; 0\ 00 EH~ ~ !;2 !;2 0 !;2 0 !;2 !;2 !;2 0 ..... ..... 0\ ..... '" ~ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ t.:! t.:! t.:! t.:! t.:! t.:! t.:! N t.:! t.:! N f-<~ ..... ..... M M M M M M M M M M M b "; = = e '0 .. ~- " 0 .. = e :c .. .. ~ .. = = 0 " 0 e ,tl ~ = '" U .c ... '; e .. i: = c.l = 0 ';> = c.l ,_ ~ ';: " .. " ~ ~ 0 0 ~ z = = u ~ lloo V) Eo- Eo- "0 ~ ~ en ~ ;::l ~~.c u "'" S ~ ,.@ ~ =~::E i:!-~::E'" ~as.Eoo ~.E-<zz .. ~ -< II II II ~II II ~~ : ~~OOZI