Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-2008 Historic Preservation Commission IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, January 10, 2008 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda 3. Items of Consideration A. Certificate of Appropriateness: 821 Dearborn Street B. Minutes for December 13, 2007 4. Other 5. Adjourn Iowa Cin Historic Preservation COlnmission IhlL.t 10 I., \\a,llll1j],tlll1 Srrcd, Inwa ] \')22..\1) MEMORANDUM Date: January 10,2008 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Re: 821 Dearborn Street - Revisions to a previously approved new construction project This project was fIrst reviewed the October 11 meeting of the Commission. At the time, the Commission approved an application for the demolition of a garage and construction of a new two- car garage at 821 Dearborn Street. The approved design included installation of fIve square clear story windows on the north fa<;:ade of the garage. In December, the applicant approached the Commission to seek approval for certain revisions including fenestration and size of the structure. The application was deferred due to inadequate information and scaled drawings. At the meeting the Commission also provided some direction in terms of the height of the structure, window placement and overall compatibility. The applicant has provided revised drawings with dimensions. The applicant is now seeking approval to install three double-hung windows on the north fa<;:ade, a 6 foot wide French door flanked by two double hung windows on the east fa<;ade, and two garage doors on the west fa<;ade. The total height of the proposed structure would approximately 18 feet. Although the revised drawings show a better design than the one presented in the December meeting, staff believes that the fenestration and exterior fInish can be improved. The drawings appear to have some discrepancies in terms of the dimensions and proportions of the proposed windows and doors (proposed window size: 6'-0" x 3'-0"; French door: 6'-6" x 7'-2"). Staff has prepared some sketches using the dimensions of the proposed structure. As seen in the sketches, the number of openings seem to overwhelm the east and north facades. Staff recommends considering smaller window sizes or installing only two windows on the south fa<;ade. Staff is aware of the applicant's need for natural light and suggests using skylights to enhance the lighting conditions in the space. Considering the size of the interior space the amount natural light from two skylights, the French doors and windows would be considerable. Given that the applicant is proposing a taller structure than that was approved, staff also recommends that a frieze board should be added. Similarly, a change in the material or surface fInish at the foundation level would help. Staff has suggested these alternatives to the applicant and the applicant has indicated that he will consider them. :z ~ - ~ <"'1 ,- ;5 ! ~ ..~ "] ~ .~ ~ I(J .::t:: .~ t?. -X- .Q:. ~ ~ ~ Z t'\ ~~ t- ~ ~ ~ ~ () ~ ~ '" ill ~.~ "- >~ ,~ ~~ jS~ -I... >.::,. .. ~ \ 1: 0') ~~.. ';;:::;, .= Z \,'-..1 ~\ ~ ~ ..Q. \j ~ .~ ~'$ $: '" ~ t- 'J) ~ III x:. L~ I ~ 4: r<l ~~. ~ ~ ,z. , \" . . .....J MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, William Downing, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Alicia Trimble, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker, Pam Michaud STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Austin Chamberlain, Chris Chapman, Don Cochran, Mr. McDonough, Alan Swanson, Jean Walker CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Melrose Neiqhborhood. Jean Walker introduced herself as the Melrose Neighborhood Representative. She said that the historic Melrose Neighborhood is at a crucial point in terms of its survival. Walker said the neighborhood needs the Commission's help and support if it is not to be swept away by The University of Iowa, as has happened to many other historic neighborhoods. Walker said that this neighborhood is unique. She said that a majority of the neighborhood has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Walker said the neighborhood is worth preserving. She said that it is significant under the three criteria of nomination to the National Register for historic events, individual, and architecture. Walker said that the neighborhood is a vibrant community directly adjacent to the University. Walker said that a concern is that the University, as a State entity, can ignore many of the restrictions that are placed on properties by the National Register as well as local restrictions. She stated that if the University did acquire the whole neighborhood, the City would lose, according to a local real estate professional, approximately one-quarter million dollars in property taxes each year. Walker said it is not some vague possibility that the University might destroy the area. She said there are many precedents, including where the Law Building is located, where the Nursing Building is located, where the dormitories are located, and where the Athletic Learning Center is situated. Walker stated that the University owns some of the big, older houses along Melrose Avenue. She said that the University buys them, stating that they are for faculty use, but shortly after that they are converted to institutional use and can eventually be demolished. Walker asked that the Commission put discussion of the preservation of the Melrose Avenue on its meeting agenda in the near future. She said that before that meeting, she would submit background information to the Commission regarding this neighborhood and would include the specific things for which the neighborhood is asking. Miklo agreed that it would be beneficial for the Commission to see a written proposal. Wetherbv House. Miklo referred to a memo submitted to the Commission by Helen Burford regarding the Wetherby House and actions that she is proposing in relation to that and future similar houses. He suggested that this item be put on the Commission's next agenda for discussion. Historic Preservation Commission December 13, 2007 Page 2 of 12 New Commission Member: Miklo introduced Lindsay Bunting Eubanks as the newest member of the Commission. ITEMS OF CONSIDERATION: Consent Calendar: 519 Oakland Avenue. Weitzel stated that the consent calendar is the process used to expedite a procedure for something that already meets the guidelines and does not require a lot of discussion. He said that unless someone had something to discuss with regard to this item, the Commission could entertain a motion to approve. MOTION: Toomey moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 519 Oakland Avenue, as submitted. Bunting Eubanks seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8- Q. Certificates of Appropriateness: 1012 WashinQton Street. Miklo stated that this item was put on the Commission's last meeting agenda in some haste, as the Building Department found the outbuilding on this property to be in a state of disrepair and had some concerns about the safety and potential collapse of the building. Miklo said that the owner was cited by the Building Department, and the Commission was asked to give the item its immediate attention. He said that Terdalkar put it on the Commission's agenda and attempted to leave a message on the owner's answering machine regarding the situation, but apparently the message did not get through. Miklo said the owner therefore did not have an opportunity to present his view, so this item is being presented for the Commission's consideration again. Miklo stated that the building is in pretty rough shape. He said that there was not much of a foundation here to begin with, and there are obviously some structural problems, including the leaning of the building. Miklo said that there used to be several small barns like this throughout neighborhoods in Iowa City, but they are becoming increasingly rare. He said the building inspector felt that the building could be stabilized fairly simply with some fairly simple internal braces, and there is the possibility that a future owner might decide to rehabilitate the building. Weitzel said that when someone is cited, if the property is in a historic district, the Commission has a chance to comment on the appropriateness of the action. He said the Commission previously voted to not allow the demolition of the building. Chapman, the owner of the building, said that the building was repaired and stabilized once before, when he was cited by the City ten years ago. He said that the bottom line is that his insurance company was not impressed with the building. Chapman said the building was not leaning before the tornado but was plumb straight, square. He said that as a result of the tornado, the building was partially lifted off the foundation and developed a lean that is partially racked. Chapman said his insurance company would only pay him the money to tear the building down. He said that doing something to the building represents significant expense for him. Chapman said that because the building is situated so close to the alley and traffic is going through the alley, it is a concern for him that he would be at risk for a future insurance claim. He said that he is afraid that if he takes the expense and time to stabilize the structure, he may be back before the Commission in a year or two. Chapman said that he is looking at the long-term situation here. Bunting Eubanks asked Chapman what the cost was when he stabilized the building ten years ago. Chapman said that basically it was the roof and the foundation. He said that the original foundation was piers made of a soft brick with a crumbling mortar. Chapman said that was replaced with concrete masonry units on top of poured concrete below grade. Historic Preservation Commission December 13, 2007 Page 3 of 12 Chapman said that the building rests partially on the ground on the south side and has a partial poured concrete foundation. He said that the manner in which it was constructed leads him to believe that the building was not original to the site. Chapman added that the building has never had paint on it. Chapman said that the eave brackets mentioned in the staff report are not original to the building but were installed during the last repair. He said the expense of the last repair was mostly for the roof. Miklo asked Chapman if his insurance company is aware that the building is in a district that requires historic preservation. Chapman responded that he told the company that the City was leaning toward asking him to repair the building rather than demolish it, as the Commission had not yet made its decision at that time. Miklo stated that often when an insurance company finds out that City Code has to be met, then the company is willing to compromise. Chapman said that he is no longer with that insurance company, and his relationship with that company has been terminated. Weitzel said that there are competing interests here. He said the owner doesn't want to spend a lot of money on this building. Weitzel said that this building, however, especially in a denser neighborhood such as this one, provides a buffer between this property and the ones behind it. He said that it may be situated close to an alley, because at the time it was built, it was probably used for either livestock or carriages. Weitzel said the alley probably still doesn't have as much traffic as a regular street. Toomey said that the racking of a building is really not that expensive and doesn't come anywhere close to what it would cost to remove the building. He said one could use a couple of comealongs going to the corner to the furthest parts of the racking, and after it's pulled up square, plywood would be put on the studs on the inside. Toomey said that plywood is a new material, but it can't rack. He said the process is not expensive or difficult and should cost less than one thousand dollars. Chapman asked if that would correct the lean as well as the racking. Toomey said that it was done with much bigger and worse structures all the time. Swaim stated that she feels that the building should be saved. She said that it represents a certain period and was probably for horses and cows before making the transition to automobile storage. Swaim said that there aren't many of these buildings left in Iowa City, but they tell the story of that period of time. Toomey pointed out that the owner could not get a building permit today to put the building back where it is now. Chapman agreed that height restrictions would prevent him from rebuilding this, and setback restrictions would prevent him from putting this building back this close to the alley. Bunting Eubanks asked how much it would cost to restore the building to its original condition. Toomey said he could not tell from the photographs. He said that for stabilization, a maximum of eight sheets of plywood at $30 each would be required, and the total cost would be less than $1,000. Toomey said that if there are foundation problems, that is another thing. He said that most of the wood looks okay from the photographs, and the building has not been altered much from its original status. Bunting Eubanks stated that she drove by the building earlier in the day and noticed that one doesn't really see it from the street. She said she did not think the removal of the building would affect the neighborhood itself in looking different or less from the period. Brennan said the Commission would need to distinguish this building from the garages the Commission has allowed to be demolished, particularly in the College Hill District, that were far more structurally sound than this one appears to be. He said the guidelines just prohibit the demolition of buildings that could be saved, but the Commission allowed them to come down. Ponto said he feels this building has more significance than some of those one-story, single-door garages. Brennan said that all of the same buildings have the same designation under the ordinance. He stated that there have been others that the Commission has not allowed to come down. Toomey asked if they were two-story buildings. Brennan said that they were garages that were salvageable, which is what the guidelines speak to. Historic Preservation Commission December 13, 2007 Page 4 of 12 Toomey said this is not even a garage. He said that the historic value of the building is quite a bit different than the relationship of a garage that is built on. Toomey said that this can't be replaced with something that is significantly the same; once it's gone, it's gone. Weitzel said he agreed with Brennan that the Commission, regarding buildings that could have and probably should have been saved, has allowed the demolition of those buildings. He said, however, that bad decisions in the past don't justify bad decisions coming forward, but it does address the question of what is proper and fair. Miklo said that the guidelines do not just refer to the condition of the building. He stated that the Commission is directed to consider the condition of the building, the integrity, and the architectural significance of the outbuilding. Bunting Eubanks pointed out that stabilizing the rack does not address the foundation problems. Toomey said that the foundation is a mixed bag. He said that over time, as he understood it, it has been kept level by putting materials underneath it. Toomey said the base would need to be jacked up and some like material would need to be inserted. Bunting Eubanks said that she finds the owner's safety concerns regarding the building's proximity to the alley somewhat compelling. Miklo said that the building official's concern is the leaning and racking of the building. He said that is what is causing the building department to say this needs to come down or be stabilized. Miklo said the building inspector did feel the building could be stabilized. Miklo said that the City does have hundreds of buildings in close proximity to alleys. He said that is the way they were built, and this is not an unusual situation, although now the City Code requires a five-foot setback from the alley. Weitzel suggested the Commission focus on the historic integrity and significance of the building. He asked Commission members if they felt the building is significant. Miklo said the Commission must weigh both the condition of the building and the integrity. He pointed out that the building will probably not be restored by the current owner and questioned whether the Commission feels the building should be stabilized to potentially be rehabilitated at some future point. Ponto said that it is fairly rare to have a structure like this of this age in the City. He said that while the rareness in and of itself isn't significant, he agreed that the building represents the time when the focus went from animal storage to automobile storage. Ponto said there are not many other examples of that in the City. Weitzel agreed that the City has lost quite a few of those buildings in the last ten years. Swaim asked how much traffic this alley sees. Chapman said that the alley dead ends. He said that there are three houses to the west of this with alley access, and four if one counts the house across the alley. Chapman said that one of the houses does not currently have parking in the alley, although one of the houses is a rental property with two basement apartments that use the alley. He said the house on Iowa Avenue also has a parking area on the alley. Bunting Eubanks stated that if the Commission postpones this for a future owner, there has to be an owner who would be willing to rehabilitate the house. She said she was concerned that this would be an eyesore for the next 50 years. Toomey said that is in the eye of the beholder. He said that the building has been here like this for a very long time. MOTION: Swaim moved to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of an outbuilding at 1012 Washington Street. Toomey seconded the motion. . Ponto said he feels that this building could be stabilized at a fairly low cost. He said that if the building comes down in the future, then so be it, but in the meantime, it's there, and he is in favor of the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1. with Buntina Eubanks votina no. Bunting Eubanks said she recognizes the historic significance of the building but does not think the building is in very great shape. She said she agrees with the owner's safety concerns. Historic Preservation Commission December 13, 2007 Page 5 of 12 521 South Governor Street. Miklo stated that this property is in the Governor-Lucas Conservation District. He said that there was a mistake in the staff report in that this property is actually non-contributing, which provides a lot more flexibility in terms of how the project should be viewed. Miklo said the building was remodeled at some point and now has more of a 1950s/1960s appearance. He stated that the proposal is to put a one-story addition on the back of the house in order to add living space to the ground floor. Miklo said that Terdalkar found the project to be in general conformance with the guidelines, and since this is a non-contributing property, the use of vinyl siding would be permitted. Miklo said the original proposal was for a roof with a 3:12 pitch, but that has been increased to a 4:12 pitch. He said there is an existing window that would make it difficult to increase the pitch any more than that. Miklo said there was also discussion regarding whether the windows on the back could be more symmetrically placed, and the owners have agreed to that. McDonough, the contractor for this project, said he was available for questions. Weitzel said that there is a window placed right next to the door on the north elevation where there would normally be a little bit of space. He asked if that is there so the trim for the both the door and window are adjacent. McDonough said that he would probably have to get rid of the window to get space there. He said that with a full light on the door, the removal of the window would probably not be a big issue if the Commission does not want it there. Weitzel said that the window would allow for ventilation where a door would probably not. He said he was just thinking about symmetry and the spacing of the windows. Toomey asked about the original siding on the house. McDonough said that the original siding was cedar shakes. He said that was torn off and replaced with aluminum siding in 1956. McDonough said that the aluminum siding was then later removed and replaced with vinyl, and there is no original siding left on the house. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 521 South Governor Street as proposed, with the exception that the window next to the door on the rear elevation be removed as discussed by the Commission. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 430 Oakland Avenue. Miklo stated that this is a contributing structure. He said that the building is pretty much in its original design state. Miklo said the owner proposes enclosing the porch on the north side of the property to make it habitable space. He said the guidelines discourage or disallow the enclosure of a front porch or a porch that is highly visible from the street. Miklo said there are some unique circumstances with this building. He said that unlike most porches, for this one, the only access to the house is through the entry's vestibule, so it doesn't really serve a function in terms of providing much usable space. Miklo said that the house also has two other porches: a sun porch and a larger, unenclosed porch on the southwest corner. Miklo said he looked at some house planning books for houses with a similar gambrel style and found examples where there was a side wing not dissimilar from what is being proposed in enclosing this particular porch. He said that if this were the only porch on this house, the Commission probably would not want to allow its enclosure. Hirschman, the owner of the house, said that he wants to update the house but keep everything historical. He said that the floor plan has a really odd layout, and one issue is that one walks in the front door where the first door to the left goes out to the porch on the north side of the house. Hirschman said that he would like to remodel the kitchen to increase its size and would like to use the present bathroom and laundry room to add space to the kitchen. He said that he would like to keep a first floor laundry room and bathroom, and the only place to put these rooms without detracting from the historic character on the inside of the house is the present porch on the north. Historic Preservation Commission December 13, 2007 Page 6 of 12 Weitzel said he had a couple of issues with the proposed design. He said that most of that centers around the fact that this was probably a mainly decorative feature that was added on to add balance to the sun porch, and the highly decorative trellises and the classical columns lend a classical colonial revival air to the building. Weitzel said he assumes the porch was not used much and was probably never intended to be used much but was intended to add a certain look to the building. Weitzel said he is not necessarily radically against enclosing the porch, but he would like to see something to address the columns and the trellises. Hirschman responded that he and Miklo and Terdalkar discussed this and found there is not a good way to make it look like it fit with the house originally. He said that he is going to make it look as similar to the sun porch as possible, minus the windows. Regarding the trellis, Hirschman said the trellis work on the south side of the house will remain, but there is not a good way to keep any of those features while enclosing the porch. Miklo said they had discussed the possibility of constructing some type of pilaster using the current columns, but given that that feature isn't found anywhere else on the house, felt it would be better to just make it look as if it was part of the original length of the house, versus a porch that was later enclosed. Swaim asked about windows on the enclosed porch. Chapman replied that there would be a window on the porch on the front side of the house. Bunting Eubanks said there had been a suggestion that other areas of the house could be used to update it. Miklo stated that Terdalkar's thought was that there could be other ways to do this without changing the porch. Miklo said, however, that it sounds like the owner has explored other alternatives. Bunting Eubanks asked if there is a basement in the house, and Chapman confirmed this. Chapman said that the basement is damp and is not a livable, functional area. He said that it could be turned into a functional space for a laundry room, but it's not convenient or extremely functional. Bunting Eubanks said she thinks this is a charming building, and enclosing the porch takes away some of that and makes it a little more asymmetrical. She suggested that the owner put a laundry room in the basement instead of using the porch, especially since it is viewable from the street. Ponto said there have been other houses for which the Commission has allowed side porches to be filled in. He said, however, that none of those had quite the architectural significance or visual appeal that this one has. Weitzel said there was a very similar case on Summit Street involving turning an open concrete porch into a sun porch. He said there were walls that were attached to the columns, but it retained the look of the porch at that point. Swaim asked if there is any way to enclose the porch but keep it airy looking. Chapman said that he is not opposed to putting more windows on that side. Swaim suggested that there be three windows as on the other side. Swaim stated that if there were to be three windows on the front and the trellises were left, it would have more of an airy feeling. Miklo passed around a book showing gambrel style houses with open porches, sun porches, and a combination of the two. He added that they did tend to have more windows than just one, as proposed. Toomey said the porch seems like more of a decorative element as opposed to being anything functional like a porch. Ponto suggested the Commission consider, assuming nothing was there now and the owner was requesting something brand new, what one would want it to look like. Miklo stated that there has been some discussion about building a garage on this site as well. He said that since there may be further work on the property, the Commission may want to consider the site comprehensively. Miklo said the owner is under some time constraints, and that's why the owner wanted to go ahead with this aspect of the project. Historic Preservation Commission December 13, 2007 Page 7 of 12 Chapman said that because of where the house sits on the block, he almost cannot put an addition on the house. Weitzel asked Chapman if he could borrow from the screened porch. Chapman said that he could, but there are windows looking into the screened porch from all sides that are connected to it, so that would be taking an exterior window. Weitzel said that in the time period of this house, gardens were a big thing. He said that a larger house would have pergolas and garden structures out in the yard. Weitzel said that houses with this size lot didn't have that option, so they built it attached to the house. He said that a lot of these are seen on houses on Grand Avenue in Cedar Rapids, and to him it is character defining. Miklo stated that the lot size is a little deceiving in that the City right-of-way is actually quite a bit further back from the curb. He said that much of the green space on the south side of the house is City right-of- way, which makes it difficult to add on to the house. Swaim asked if all of the options have been exhausted and questioned whether the proper solution is to have three windows in the front to match the right side. Trimble said that if one tries to make the left side look symmetrical, it would actually look less symmetrical. She said that because of the chimneys and the door, the house isn't supposed to be symmetrical. Miklo said that this project is a problematic application in terms of the guidelines. He said that the Commission may want to defer this, unless there is a majority that feels that it is appropriate to enclose the porch. Miklo said that other opportunities could be explored during the deferral period. Bunting Eubanks said that she would be interested in knowing whether one of the other spaces that is not viewable from the road could be used for more functional space. Toomey said that the Commission is generally not concerned with the use of the building but is concerned with the outside appearance. Weitzel said that in some cases, the functional space somewhat determines what the skin has to look like, although the Commission doesn't concern itself with occupancy and that type of issue. Ponto agreed with Trimble that if one tries to make this look symmetrical, it never would. He said it might be just as well to only have the one window so it is obviously not symmetrical. Toomey said that keeping consistent windows is not necessarily symmetry - that is just standard, particularly in terms of height. Regarding a motion to defer, Swaim stated that if there could be any other solution to this, she would rather defer this for the time being than vote it down. Chapman said that he is okay with the Commission dictating what this should be if it can be passed. He said that he wants the Commission's input to make this as historically accurate as possible. Chapman said that he is in a bind with the functional footprint of the house in that he can't easily expand except in this one place where there is existing roofline and an existing historic foundation. Toomey said that he wouldn't defer this just to string the owner along. He said that he doesn't have a lot of problem with turning that porch into a functional space, but he would like it to still fit with the house. Weitzel said that he would like to know more about the floor plan and would like to explore other options to either take space from the screened porch or other space off the back, even if it's a small addition. He said that this isn't a large addition, so a small space off the back could be a possibility. MOTION: Ponto moved to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for a project at 430 Oakland Avenue to a future meeting o;f the Commission. Swaim seconded the motion. Ponto said that to him, this porch is a realily distinctive feature of this house. He said, however, that because there is an existing roof and existing foundation, it would be fairly easy to enclose this and not have it look terrible. Weitzel said that the Commission needs to know more about the foundation in this case and whether it can be rebuilt. Brennan said that he is sympathetic to the use considerations but does not see any way around the disallowance of a highly visible porch enclosure. He said that for that reason he would vote against deferring, because he does not think this can be approved. Historic Preservation Commission December 13, 2007 Page 8 of 12 Weitzel said that he is skeptical that he would see a plan that would make him happy with enclosing this porch. He said that for him a vote for deferral would be to find other options on the site to accommodate a first floor laundry. Weitzel said that deferring this would keep all the options open. Ponto said that from the applicant's point of view, he deserves to have some idea where the Commission stands. He said that if called to a vote right now, he would probably vote not to approve this. Ponto said that looking at other options would be his strongest preference. Miklo said there are some zoning setback issues here, and there is a procedure to allow some variation of setback through the Board of Adjustment. He said he would discuss that possibility with Hirschman. Brennan said he had no problem voting to defer if that is the applicant's preference. The motion to defer carried on a vote of 7-1. with Toomev votina no. 2460 South Gilbert Street. Miklo stated that this is a landmark property also known as the McCollister Homestead, and it has been on the agenda before. He said that this house is quite significant in the community's history in the 1860s to 1870s era. Miklo said that it is an Italianate farmhouse with several outbuildings associated with it. Miklo said that there was a garden shed/greenhouse of concrete cedar block on the property that the applicant enclosed and built as a garden shed without a building permit. He said the building official cited the owner and required him to bring it into compliance by obtaining a building permit, which requires a certificate of appropriateness. Miklo said that the building in question is not a historic structure. He said the Commission reviewed the building and found that it did not meet the guidelines in terms of the false impression of history that it might create. Miklo said board and batten siding was discussed as an alternative to make it look more like a farm outbuilding that would be appropriate to the period. He said the owner then altered the building again without seeking a permit or approval and is now back seeking approval. Miklo said that from a design perspective, this is a big improvement over the log siding that was on the property. He said that the roof shape is quite unusual but not necessarily unlike a chicken coop or an agricultural building. Although this is not a historic building, Miklo said there are still some things that are quite odd about it, including where the logs between windows are not filled in. He said the porch is quite elaborate in design for a simple structure like this. Miklo said that Terdalkar suggested removing the decorative crossbeams. He said that Terdalkar also identified the vinyl windows as an issue. Miklo said the guidelines are quite clear that vinyl windows are not allowed for primary structures in a historic district. He said that when discussing outbuildings, the guidelines don't go into much detail about windows. Miklo said that he did not feel the windows are a strong concern in that, given the size of this building and its function, it will probably not be a permanent building on this site. He said that the board and batten siding makes a big improvement, so the biggest issue is the crossbeams on the porch. Cochran, the owner of the property, said that the key thing for him was to not take away from the primary house. He said the building is a modern, non-contributing building and was not functional the way it was. Cochran said that the windows were put in for light. He said this is primarily being used as a garden shed to store tractors and tools. Cochran said that the guidelines do allow for an exception on modern buildings. Regarding the brace, Cochran said that it is not functional in that there is not enough weight on the roof to need a brace. He added that he has done some research on barns and outbuildings, and in most rural areas, a lot of times those crossbeams are there for decoration. Cochran said that this is the most simple timber frame design that one can do. He said that there is an inch or so cut out of the lower one to give a little bit of a curve, but he wouldn't call it decorative. Cochran said he would like the ability to cover it with siding, because that is what one sees on other machine sheds, and usually the siding is wrapped around the brace. Historic Preservation Commission December 13, 2007 Page 9 of 12 Miklo said the issue isn't that the braces are decorative. He said that usually one wouldn't have a porch on a building like this, and adding the braces brings more attention to it. Miklo said that simplifying the building would make it less obvious. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 2460 South Gilbert Street as proposed, with the exceptions that the bracing be removed and the log spaces between the windows be covered up. Bunting Eubanks seconded the motion. Ponto said he was okay with this, since it is a multi-functional garden shed that is a secondary building way back on the lot. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 821 Dearborn Street. Swanson introduced himself as a friend of the owner of this property, Ron Cohen, who is out of the country. Swanson said the Commission approved the construction of a garage on this property in October. He said the design presented at that time was an elementary design with two doors. Swanson presented a packet of information and said that since that time, the owner has decided he would like to have one door instead of two and would like to have his studio in this building and have the north light. Swanson said that he believes the new design would result in a better structure than was proposed before. He said the owner really wants it to look right with the house. Swanson said the owner plans to match the roof pitch as much as possible. He said that the cupola may not be there at first, but the trusses have been designed so that it could be. Swanson said it could be a flat roof if the Commission does not like the cupola, but it would let more light in the garage. Swanson said that the sides of the garage would be 22 feet. He said the owner wants muntins if that is acceptable to the Commission. Swanson said the proposed windows are casement windows, but they can be changed to sash windows if the Commission would prefer. He said they tried to make the design symmetrical, and the band proportions on the garage are similar to those that are on the house. Swanson said that the proposal shows four three by six windows. He said that there is a window on the house facing the garage that is about three by six. Swanson said that the house has many different sized windows. Miklo said that the presented information is all new information to the staff and the Commission. He said that if the owner is willing to vary the design this much from what was previously approved, he would suggest a deferral so that Terdalkar can examine the design based on the guidelines. Miklo said that what was previously received was a drawing that proposed more light, and staff thought there might be a solution to doing that, although not necessarily the proposed version, because the proportions and divided lights don't take their cue from other outbuildings in the neighborhood or the house itself. He said that there is probably a solution in terms of adding more windows to make this usable studio space. Miklo said that if the owner wanted to work from the original drawings and come up with a window configuration, that could probably be done. He said that a totally different design would probably require deferral to give time to review the new plans. Chamberlain said that what the owner came up with is not really different from the other plan; the cupola is just a feature that the Commission can take or leave. Chamberlain said that the main issue is the amount of windows. He said there are probably four or five six by three windows on the house. Miklo asked if the walls would be taller. Swanson said they would be a little bit taller. Miklo said that would be another departure from the original plan. Chamberlain said he wanted it to have a little bit of a carriage house look with a craftsman look to try to match the house. He said that what the new plan would do would be to go from five barn sash windows up high to four double hung windows the same size as some of those on the house. Historic Preservation Commission December 13, 2007 Page 10 of 12 Weitzel said that what was approved at the last meeting had historic precedence in that it borrowed from the house and some of the other smaller buildings in the neighborhood. He said that this new proposal does not borrow from any historic tradition. Weitzel said that therefore staff will need some time to see how to match the guidelines, historic precedence, etc. He said it would be difficult to do that extensive review at this night's meeting. Downing asked about the height of the buUding. Chamberlain said it is 15 feet at midcap, which is the City's maximum. He said that the roof pitch, which is the same as that of the house, makes it so that the 15-foot midcap uses twelve-foot walls. Chamberlain said that makes the walls a little bit taller, because the roofs are difference from the other roofs in the neighborhood. He said there is really nothing different in this design except the elimination of a garage door. Weitzel said that the fenestration on the new plan is entirely different than that of the old. Toomey said he would like to see a staff report on the changes. Weitzel said that Terdalkar will be looking for ways to increase the amount of light with fenestration with a facing, size, and proportion that make this look like a historic building. Swanson said that he would be glad to meet with Terdalkar. Swanson asked if the new plan was at least on the right track. Weitzel said that what the Commission approved previously was a building that clearly isn't the original but did match the house. He said it was a stucco building with the option to do board and batten, and it was a building that had a very prairie school look. Weitzel said the windows on the new plan make a huge difference. He said also that garages typically don't have casement windows. Swanson said that they don't need to use casement windows but added that he would talk to Terdalkar about the windows. Downing suggested that Swanson and Chamberlain also discuss the roofline with the City's Building Department. He said the Building Department might take a different view of the roofline and the calculation of maximum height. Swanson said that the cupola was added to increase the amount of light. Ponto asked if the skylights are gone, and Swanson said they have been removed from the proposal because of budget constraints. Weitzel pointed out that the house is from the Prairie School of Architecture out of Chicago with influences of Louie Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright. He said that those are the design precedents that should be matched in the garage. MOTION: Toomey moved to defer consideration of an application for a project at 821 Dearborn Street to a future Commission meeting. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Minutes for October 24. November 1. and November 7.2007. November 7. 2007 Minutes: Downing pointed out that the person referred to on pages two and three as Eric should be listed as Eric Hindrichson. Brennan said that on page three, in the fourth paragraph, line four, "...question is can this be done..." should be changed to "...question is whether this can be done..." Brennan said that on page six, paragraph five, line five, the first word should be "last," not "least." October 24, 2007 and November 7, 2007 Minutes: The minutes for these two meetings were filed by consensus. OTHER: Weitzel said there will be a public hearing on Monday from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the Public Library regarding the federal tax credits program as administered to the State. Miklo said the issue is that the way the tax credits are structured is not very useful, and the State is looking for ways to improve that. He said that Marlys Svendsen is developing a list of talking points that the Commission could present. Downing agreed to attend the meeting and present the issues as developed by Svendsen. Historic Preservation Commission December 13, 2007 Page 11 of 12 Miklo added that the Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Preservation Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on December 20th. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte c .2 In .!!! E" E ... o 0 uCJ (I) co::: .2 (I) ..... "'CJO cuco ~CUN (I)" In C e~ c..<c CJ 'i: o ... .!!! :r: l'f'l f:I:! I I I f:I:! - ><: I ><: I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ...... N 0 I I I 0 - I I I t- I I I f:I:! S2 ><: ><: I ><: I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: - I I I 0 - I I I - f:I:! I I I S2 ><: I ><: I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: - 0 I I I - I I I ..., f:I:! I I I !::::! ><: I ><: I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: Q 0 I I I - I I I - I I I f:I:! - ><: ><: I ><: I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ...... Q I I I 0 - I I I t- I I I I ~ - ><: ><: I I I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ...... I I I I Q'\ I I I I ~ I I I f:I:! f:I:! ><: ><: I I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: QC) I I I 0 0 I I I N I I I f:I:! f:I:! - ><: ><: I I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: t:: I I I 0 0 I I I QC) I I I f:I:! !::::! ><: 0 I I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: I I I 0 \&; I I I N f:I:! I I I f:I:! f:I:! - ><: I I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ...... 0 I I I 0 0 \&; I I I - I I I f:I:! f:I:! ~ ><: ><: I I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: I I I 0 0 on I I I t- f:I:! I I I f:I:! f:I:! - ><: I I I ><: ><: ><: ><:><: iIi 0 I I I 0 0 I I I N I I I f:I:! - ><: ><: I I I ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ...... I I I 0 ..., I I I QC) f:I:! I f:I:! f:I:! I f:I:! S2 ><: ><: I ><: ><:><: I ><: 0 I 0 0 I 0 l'f'l I I QC) I f:I:! I S2 ><: ><: ><: I ><: ><: ><:><: I ><:><: I 0 I N I I Vl 0\ 00 t- o t- oo 0\ t- Q'\ 0 Q'\ 00 E ,g 0 0 !'2 - !'2 !'2 00 0 - 0 0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... --, ...... 0;; 0;; OJ ~ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ C:! C:! C:! N C:! C:! N N N C:! C:! C:! E-[.lJ ...... ...... ...... ...... <"l <"l <"l <"l <"l <"l <"l <"l M <"l <"l <"l ~ -; = ~ e "0 Ilol ....- ~ = = ... = ::c; Ilol Ilol Cl) ... = 0 'c = 0 ~ 0 e e .:l S Ilol = '" u -= '; e i: ~ = .... ~ Ilol (j = 0 '0:; ttl ~ ... ~ 0 = (j ,- 0 ~ ';: 0 Z =:i =:i U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 Eo- Eo- ~ "'0 Cl) '" 8 01) ~ ,S ~'[) d Cl) ~~1A~ Cl) Cl),.o 0 ~.2<z ~ < II II ~II II f:I:!~ ~><:ooz