HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2010 Historic Preservation Commission
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, May 27,2010
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Emma] Barvat Hall
6:00 p.m.
A) Call to Order
B) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
C) Certificate of Appropriateness
1. 618 Dearborn St
2. 619 Brown St
3. 1205 Seymour Ave
4. 630 N Dodge St
5. 841-845 Maggard St
6. 837 Maggard St
D) Consideration of minutes for May 13, 2010
E) Other
F) Adjournment
Staff Report
Historic Review for 618 Dearborn Street
District: Dearborn Street ConseIVation District
dassification: Contributing
The applicant, Maureen Olsen, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration! addition project at 618
Dearborn Street, a contributing property the Dearborn Street ConseIVation District. He is seeking approval
to change two windows into a sliding glass door and to construct a 19' x 12' deck
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
1 () /o'Wtl Oiy Histone Presermtion GUIdelines JOr Alterations
4.8 Doors
5. () /o'Wtl Oiy Histone Presermtion Gmdelines JOr Additions
5.2 Decks and Ramps
St07'Comments
This two-story gable roof house was built in 1928 by Moffitt and Blakesly, one of 49 in the Longfellow area.
This is a good example of Colonial Revival design with side gable entry, the door off-set to the left. The
attached single car garage is original. The wide brick chimney located on the fa<fade is a hallmark of Moffitt
houses.
May 27,2010
The applicant is proposing to remove a set of windows on the rear of the hoUse and replacing them with a
sliding patio door. The applicant is also proposing to build a 19' x 12' deck off the rear of the house. The
structural members of the deck will be constructed of treated lumber, while the rest will be constructed of
cedar.
The guidelines generally disallow the installation of sliding patio doors. However, an exception to the
guidelines for properties in ConseIVation Districts allows sliding patio doors to be installed on the rear of a
building provided the opening be trimmed to match the existing windows and doors.
The guidelines for decks recommend locating new decks on the rear of the building and set in at least 8"
from the sidewalls. Decks should also be of a scale and location that does not detract from the character of
the district. The guidelines also recommend for deck railings to meet the requirements of 4.10 Balustrades
and Handrails.
In Staff's opinion, the proposed sliding patio door and deck will have minimal impact on the character of the
district. The deck is set back from the sidewalls and will not be visible from the street. In order for the
railing to meet the requirements of 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails, a railing with spindles tied into the top
and bottom rail as shown in the illustration below is necessary.
Recommended Notion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 618 Dearborn Street as presented in the
application with the following conditions:
· that the deck railing appears similar to the illustration below and is approved by staff
· that the sliding patio door is wood or metal clad wood and is trimmed to match the existing
windows and doors.
_/
,-;:;-
A~
/{~' ,
,../
...
eh v I c;t- I VI. Cc f(. Vi c- C- h f:..- y ({JIC<. b7 Y1 ( P7 9 )
Application for alterations to the historic landm~rks or
properties 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
Planning & Community Development office at City Hall or
online at: www.icgov.orgjHistoricPreservation
For Staff Use:
Date submitted: tS / ~/ /b
o Certificate of No material Effect
2( Certificate of Appropriateness
o Major review
o Intermediate review
o Minor review
The Historic Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with building
and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the Building
lnspection Division prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Meeting Schedule: The HPe meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the
HPe may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the peD office by noon on Thursday
two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates.
PropertY Owner / Applicant Inforrn.ation
(Please check primary contact person) .
o PropertyOwnerName:---.!:JENR.Y' MAURE.~N OLSEN
I
Phone Number: (319) 351- b6q 5'
Email:
Address:~1 ca DEAR60P-.N
City: J:..OW A crry State: I A
Ig1 Contractor / Consultant Name: --'pA,. N A.UC,HTON
.
Email: .pNAV{,H1C.R.61 ()MA'l.COfA
Address: 7q 6 lIT"" Sf RE~
City: MAP-ION
Zip Code: 5Jc2 4 0
Phone Number: (3JCl)
551.5'90'
State: :I.."
Zip Code:
5.l4 OJ
Proposed Project Information
Address:
618_DE.A.~8o~N
Use of Property: RE~ I DE"'''' 1\L
Date Constructed (ifknown): ~q '3 e
Historic Designation
(Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook)
o This property is a local historic landmark.
OR
o This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location):
o Brown Street Historic District 0 College Green Historic District
o East College Street Historic District 0 Longfellow Historic District
o Northside Historic District 0 Summit Street Historic District
o Woodlawn Historic District 0 Clark Street Conservation District
o College Hill Conservation District -g Dearborn Street Conservation District
o Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
)( Contributing
o Noncontributing
o Nonhistoric
Application .Requirements
Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials.
Applications without necessary materials may be postponed.
IX! Addition
(Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.)
o Building Elevations 0 Floor Plans 0 Photographs
o Product Information 0 Site Plans
o Alteration
(Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or
porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to
describe the scope of the project are sufficient.)
o Building Elevations
o Construction of new building
o Building Elevations
o Product Information
o Demolition
(Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney,
decorative trim, baluster, etc.)
o Photographs
o Product Information
o Floor Plans
o Site Plans
o Photographs
o Photographs 0 Proposal of Future Plans
o Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance.
o Photographs 0 Product Information
o Other:
Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application.
ProposedProjectI>etails
Project Description:
:c N ~,. ^ \..L Ai,ON
APPItO)(' 19 ~ Ii
OF SL,OIl,,6 6ll..SS DooR AND
I
Bo,\.p ^
o Eo'- J<.
Materials to be Used:
JO,Si5 ,0 BE: prtCSSURE "R~"E:D. ~E.Si ,0 Be ceDAR
Exterior Appearance Changes:
DE:C\(. I\OOr1"ION 5T Ptlr-JEO CE.O^ ~
a ppforhistoricreview-pd f
z
a:
a
.
..
.
Y.I
C
.
,.
..
;a.U!1101
I
.
..
L
.
.
1
.r:
o
..
.:.
~
0:(
:i;:.....
~"'t"
0:\\1
LL~
OJ
r.Jj
N
y
~8
U- .::=,
01
";;e-
....
..".
N
~
N
~
N
8
IT
-:(~
~O
~~
~~
U,
,-
eU~l 1.1
lJ~sign #: 32971
4/16/2010
* * * Take this sheet to the Building Materials desk to purchase your materials. * * *
You selected a 1/evel deck with: . . . .
Pressure Treated Framing Material Bel~w IS a section of the railing style and
4 x 4 Framing Posts options you have selected for your deck.
5/4" x 6" Cedar Deck Boards
Concrete Footings
Premium Gold Combo Drive Screws
Stainless Steel Framing Fasteners
Cladding
Handrail selections:
36" Vertical Handrail to Joist wlo Posts Railing
2" x 2" x 42" Cedar Spindles, Beveled 1 End
2" x 6" Cedar Hand Rail
Spindle placement is approx. 4" apart depending on style
You may buy all the materials or any' part at low cash and carry prices. Because of the wide variable in codes,
Menards cannot guarantee that materials listed will meet your code requirements. Check with your local municipality
for plan compliance and building permit. These plans are suggested designs and material lists only. Some items may vary
from those pictured. We do not guarantee the completeness or prices of these structures. Tax, labor and delivery not Induoed.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Illustration intended to show general deck size and shape.
Some options selected may not be shown for picture clarity.
Today's cost for materials estimated in this design with options:$1 ,581.06
*The base price includes: 40 PSF deck live load, AC2 treated. horizontal2x6 *(BASE orieel: $1.053.60
Staff Report
May 27,2010
Historic Review for 619 Brown Street
District: Brown Street Historic District
dassification: Contributing
The applicant, John Reynolds, is requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 619 BrownSt, a
contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The project consists of a 4' x9' addition to the
east side of the house.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
5. 0 ./owa City Histone Presermtion Guldelines./or Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
StaJ7Comments
This house is an open-gabled cottage with Craftsman style features. The house is sited on a narrow lot with
the gable end oriented towards the street and entrance on the west side. The entrance is covered by a small
shallow, shed roof portico supported by knee brace brackets. The house is clad with wood shingles and has a
2-storyell addition on the east side.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 4' x 9' addition to the eastside of the house. The bump out will be
one story high and have a shed roof. The addition will be set behind the existing bay on the east fas;ade. The
siding, foundation, windows, and materials will match existing. The existing small window will be reused on
the new addition.
The guidelines allow for the construction of additions and recommends for additions to be placed to the rear
of the property. When additions are not on the rear of the property, it is recommended for the addition to be
set back at least 18" from the front fas;ade of the building. The proposed addition is set back much more
than 18" from the front of the house and is located behind the existing bay on the east f~ade.
In Staff's opinion, the addition has been designed to mimic the historic features of the house and to have
minimal impact on the historic appearance of the house.
.f( ecommended Notion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition project at 619 Brown St as presented in
the application.
~Y' .\
. ,
/-:
~.
......--
Application for Historic Review
Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties
located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City
Code Section 14-4C. 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 Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting.
See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates.
For Staff Use: t:::.. 2
. '::)-1 -Iv
Date submitted .......................................................
o Certificate of No Material Effect
i(' Certificate of Appropriateness
~ Major review
o Intermediate review
o Minor review
email................................................................................................
~ Contractor~.~.:o{.~.:Jd.~~.~;~..:..:Q~.~~..CQ.fli>~\tu ~ \cwt'istoric Designation
Address .;?'.t~.Q..~.p..:.~.CJ:.!.~.~.3~.....~.~.... D Th: property is a local historic landmark
L>.I.1.l;>,~.~.'"\.".~e.................-"P.~.~~.:::\1o 0 ;..h'S property is located in the:
Phone.~.t~.)..~.~Q.;::...~.~.S;'/.....Q..C.(~.!~).k~.?;:.~ 3 ~ Brown Street Historic District
email................................................................................................. 0 College Green Historic District
o Consultant ................................................................................. D East College Street Historic District
D Longfellow Historic District
o Summit Street Historic District
o Woodlawn Historic District
D Clark Street Conservation District
D College Hill Conservation District
D Dearborn Street Conservation District
D Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District
Applicant Information
(Please check primary contact person)
!( Owner ...1..o.ho......R.e.'1n.Q..1d.:::...........................
Phone..~..~..9..)..3..Q.~..~...~..1..~.3.........................
Address ..~...'.~......~.X:Q.W.............................................
.................................................................................zip...................
Add ress .............. ...................... .......... ................................... .........
.................................................................................zip...................
Phone ............... ........ ........ ....... ...... .................. ................................
.........................................................................................................
email................................................................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
o Site plan
D Floor plans
D Building elevations
D Photographs
D Product information . \- If'
1Il Other..~.9.f):\9.~~.~~..~r::\.f.:>\:.~.U.....~. ~A L>
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
describe 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 ......J.ll.lq.....~..f..Q~.O.....~.r..~ eJr
....SQ.~.(J,......C:!.A~..t..1:..B.....5.4.a..~..~..
Use of property.....~.!..O..<j\.~......\:aY.:O.:!..\.j..............
Date constructed (if known)...............Lq.J.::\.............................
g......, 'thin the district, this property is classified as:
. Contributing
Noncontributing
D Nonhistoric
Project Type
D Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window
replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new
decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar)
'fl... Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps)
D Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch,
chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar)
D Construction of new building
D Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
D Other..............................................................................................
Project description I . (~
..........X\~..!.cb.c2Ai-;:)........Du.\.~~)..::..a.u:t........~........:?S.....9.......~...........\..Y.lB.......f;;,),'P..~.~..~.........................................
........0.0.~...ili..cl.b........i..~.......:Q..O......g..~.\.~.~.j..c...5.......LQ.X:),.~..t..a...O.~C.LU..O"'.j....~.\..-Y.o.
........\...\.~.........D.u.;J..o..........LD.Q..,.\..\...f....Jul.1.?.~..\:...\...CI.~.........O.C\.\..~........:Q......r..t:.DO.:c.':-I...a...\.............
..............o.i........ .B..[.Q...:>.!.::I...,:::Y.J..-a..~.e.".\. ........\......~a~..\.......Q.~.......~.~.f..:\.b......:....II-:J..............................
........:I.h.A-...A....\.OD.~....~\(..e.sJ...i..... ......,...:.1b.&........f..:Q.k..~,......Q..t.......::Y..6.......\9.;,e.o.""p - Qu \-
.........w..l...1..\.......~-::1.D.:\:.......\2.r:~.\.u.c!~.......po..~.~.......\.~.......~.~:L~\::).xJ.'5....b.Q..~:0.e-........
...............::t.O"'c.~._....~h.e......~..\.!:c..b........:2.D.d:.......~..\:.Sw:\.\.~......Q.:t.......~.......f...Q.Qt........................
.............L0:.\...\..~.......n:)..~~.......:~:J.~......a~......~?S:~.5:.~.."..(J..~......b..Q.~.~..tr.....P\.\..\.................
............:\..r..~I...~.....I...~...\...O..~.Q.~;;;.....t.....;:>..~.~.~.:O..C\.......~.\f.:)..~..~~.\.D.::!.......c..Q..t.Q.f.:..~.....
.........LQ.\..\.\.......m.J.b..\..c.b........~.:6.~.~.:\.t..O'."5.....~\..~.:\:Q..~.\~.~.\..........C.Q.\..~.L.~._............
Materials to be used
...............6.1..\........r.t\.o...:\:er.:.L...o..Q,.:S............LU.:t...\..S.......'Cf)..~~.clc:'!........Y.:::-:.:.\..:s.:\.Q..~..~...~.........................
..............Q.r....J....~. \..a...oJL......\..J..D..\..~..~.S.........D:\.~C.L\.2..~...~g.:..........~.\.Q\.:x~~......\:).~.......................
................c,:,.t.:. . .....b.I.:!,.\.d.'o.q....L.C:l.d.C..;;,.,.......~..\\.........c...y..f....c~.~\':J...........7Wl.~dO cO ,
................e-X...\... .......\...a'5.....:c.:a...~ex..J..o.Q.:e>........L&J.....\............~.......~:;Q).\.........~.~...O..\::..~.l.~.l..n'j }
Exterior appearance changes
::::::::::::~:~Z~::::::::::s::[::::::::f;~::~::::::::~:~:::::::b:;::~::~:::::::C:;~:~::::::::~:~:~:~::::::::::::::)...:::::::
-. . \.::: --.j J I
.................y..~..~.e.g.~..:)......L&?:\...\..~......~......\a.\.2..~...~..~.....Q.u..~.........l-4..........X....q..............
.........:\.Q......x:n..e.R....\....... ..e..;)\...\..~.~.)..n(:~r...hO'0..7.::..a....h.r.:a.I:..~.....................................................
%!'tr;
t\l
~~..
~
~
iJ.~Y/;1
i:
~
:$
"",I
,Jj
_:'...~~__JI. ItI!
~
_ _ --. .--- _1IIi\'! ~
f
:t!:
1f.
!!-~' l' lJ'
~{",'"' '"
,*1_. <'i
.!)-t- "....
;~;
~
l:i
~';
,f)
;Eft'"
F. xl ~:I. \ "J
,,'it.
,
1'5 ?
'(,
.~
:y
it'
f~
~ Iii
);i:;
~t
!ft:'(!
~
i2i~
S1
~3
fft~l
-,')l'iJ '*i; W.,."
i;'fi
~
,J ~
',,"
*'
~i;!;
H
)!
'" ~
i~;
tit-
1'k~
::;;.
~
~
Pv-o po ~e \
Staff Report
Historic Review for 1205 Seymour Ave
District: Longfellow Historic District
dassification: Contributing
May 27, 2010
The applicants, Tom andJeri Hoban, are requesting approval for a proposed project at 1205 Seymour Ave, a
contributing property the Longfellow Historic District. The applicants are seeking approval to replace the
wood siding.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
-1. () /OWtl Oiy HiS'tone Preserwtion Guidelines JOr Alterations
4.5 Siding
Staj7Comments
This one story English Cottage with gable roof, asymmetrically placed gables on the fa<;ade, and arched
garden gate to the left of a massive chimney located on the fa<;ade, would be an outstanding example of the
style were it not for the rear additions and the replacement of the original siding. This structure is very similar
to the house at 1201 Seymour Ave, which still retains its original siding.
The applicants are proposing to remove the non-original wood siding, trim, fascia, and window casings. The
wood elements are deteriorating and splitting. All elements will be replaced with cedar; however, instead of
lap siding, the applicants are proposing to use shingle style siding. 'Tbe applicant provided photographs of the
house from 1974 that show the house with shingle style siding.
The Guidelines recommend that historic wood siding and trim be repaired rather than replaced whenever
possible. However, the guidelines also recommend to remove non- historic alterations.
In Staff's opinion, the replacement will return the house to its original appearance. Staff recommends that as
replacements are made that the applicants look to their neighbor at 1201 Seymour Ave for the appropriate
treatment of elements
Recommended JI.:f otion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1205 Seymour Ave as presented in the
application.
Application for Historic Review
Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or
properties 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
Planning & Community Development office at City Hall or
online at: www.icgov.orgjHistoricPreservation
For Staff Use:
Date submitted: ~I III lu
D Certificate of No material Effect
Ji(t' Certificate of Appropriateness
~ Major review
o Intermediate review
o Minor review
The Historic Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with building
and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the Building
Inspection Division prior to the issuance of a building permit.
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 Thursday
two weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates.
~~~-~-===~-,----:-c-c-~_ . c---=--c--=-c--:-----, - -.--.-- -Ill~eFty;_0wBi~pH'(tantclHfe-Flnatmnc;--,~--c
(Please check primary contact person)
o Property Owner Name: TOw.." .Jer Z {-Iobo...,-T
Email:
Phone Number: (
ssg -80(6.
Address:
{'lo~
S'e~_~r-
City:
State:
Zip Code:
o Contractor I Consultant Name: C {().r k <S,. ; -t:~ I '",
Email: .....f-~..hc.().YJ~iew.t:.l-4!.aJ(.I..SA .'^~ Phone Number: (31'() 13' - {"( 3 r
Address: /OS 8-1 (' ~>>-L~r-~t'o1 Or-,
City: T. C - State: r fl- Zip Code: >~ ? -Y6
Proposed Project Information
Address: ( ~ C> 5 S e :JtN\ 0t4 r-
Use of Property: ~OIA. 5<- Date Constructed (if known):
Historic Designation
(Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook)
D This property is a local historic landmark.
OR
~his Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location):
o Brown Street Historic District
o East College Street Historic District
o Northside Historic District
o Woodlawn Historic District
o College Hill Conservation District
o Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District
o College Green Historic District
rn-Longfellow Historic District
o Summit Street Historic District
o Clark Street Conservation District
o Dearborn Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
o Contributing
o Noncontributing
o Nonhistoric
Application Requirements
Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials.
Applications without necessary materials may be postponed.
o Addition
(Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.)
D Building Elevations D Floor Plans D Photographs
D Product Information D Site Plans
[g'"" Alteration
(Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or
porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to
describe the scope of the project are sufficient.)
D Building Elevations
o Construction of new building
D Building Elevations
D Product Information
D Photographs
D Product Information
D Floor Plans
D Site Plans
D Photographs
__________0 Demolition
--_."_._---~~-_.~---------------,---_._---,._~----~---._---_._~----------
- -
(Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney,
decorative trim, baluster, etc.)
D Photographs
D Proposal of Future Plans
o Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance.
D Photographs D Product Information
o Other:
Please mntactthe Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application.
Proposed Project Details
Project Description:
r""if~/(
cedc...,-. SL'--.J/e
c;/d(~
(Jv-J
ceJa..~ '1 v- . ~
I
.fo..s c.... 'q
,I
tV ' ~~~......- c~ S' ( :..../_
Materials to be Used:
ced~v-
Exterior Appearance Changes:
a p p forhi sto ricrevi ew-pd f
, 1-6' St.l Mw.l
11-0:' Se'1~
----~--
'.
Staff Report
Historic Review for 630 N Dodge Street
District: Brown Street Historic District
Classification: Contributing
May 27,2010
The applicant, ] udith Polwnbawn, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 630 N Dodge
Street, a contributing property the Brown Street Historic District. She is seeking approval to add three
dormers on the property. The applicant is also proposing to install a below grade basement door on the east
side of the house.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
i {} /owa Diy Historic .P!C'serwtion GUIdelines jOr Alterations
4.1 Foundations
4.4 Mass and Rooflines
4.8 Doors
Sta.f7Comments
This vernacular house, influenced by the Queen Anne style, was built in the late 1890s orthe turn of the
century. Its asymmetrical massing and the decorative gable shingles give it its Victorian appearance. The
cornice returns on the gables indicate it is a "free classic" variant of the Queen Anne.
The applicant is proposing the addition of two dormers on the north elevation and one on the south (east)
elevation. The dormers are to add more usable space to the attic. The proposed dormers will be sided to
match the existing siding. The roof of the dormers is proposed to be 6/12 and has the same cornice returns
as the existing gables. The applicant is proposing to use casement windows in the dormers in order to
provide egress.
The guidelines allow the addition of new dormers if the dormer is of a size, scale, and proportion that is
consistent with the architectural style of the house. Other guidelines for dormers are:
· Designing new dormers such that the face of the dormer is primarily composed of window area
· Adding dormers to an existing roof in a manner that does not significantly alter the character of
the historic building
· Adding dormers that are in proportion to the roof's overall size. The width of the dormers in
proportion to the roof on which they are located should be consistent with the architectural
style.
· Adding dormers that are no closer than 3 feet to an existing gable end or hip. The intent is to
avoid significantly altering the original roof lines
· Constructing gabled and hipped dormers that have roof pitches similar to the pitch of the main
roof.
In Staff's opinion, gable dormers are compatible with the Queen Anne features of the house. Staff does have
some concern about the windows in the dormers and the roof pitch of the dormers. Unless it can be proven
that casement windows are required to meet egress requirements, staff recommends that the dormers each
have a single double hung window of the same dimension as the existing second story windows. Staff also
recommends that the roof pitch of the dormers be increased to at least an 8/12. Staff believes that the 6/12
slope is not compatible with a Queen Anne style house.
The applicant is also proposing to install a below grade basement door on the north side of the house under
the cross gable. The specifications for any necessary retaining walls or stairs have not been submitted.
The guidelines do not specifically address this sort of situation. However, the guidelines do recommend that
the size and shape of historic door openings, window openings, and storm cellar entrances be retained in the
foundations. When new window wells are required, it is recommended that the materials must appear similar
to the existing foundation material. The guidelines also recommend that when new doors are added the
opening must be trimmed to match the other doors and windows in the building.
In Staff's opinion, a basement door is more appropriate on the rear of the property, not on a street facing
elevation. Staff is also concerned that details of any necessary retaining walls or stairs have not been
submitted. Staff recommends for the decision on the basement door be deferred until these details are
submitted.
/recommended Hotion
Staff recommends splitting the two portions of the application into two separate motions.
1. Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness forthe dormer project at 630 N Dodge Street with the
following conditions:
· The dormer roofs having the same overhang and detail as the existing roof
· The dormer roof pitch being changed to at least an 8/12 pitch, but not to exceed a 12/12 pitch
· The dormer siding and trim matching the existing siding and trim in dimension and profile
· The windows being either solid wood or metal clad solid wood windows.
· The window specifications being subject to staff approval, with floor plans being submitted to
confirm the need for egress windows. If possible, double hung windows of the same dimension
as the existing second story windows should be used. If casement windows are required, the
design should mimic the appearance of a double hung window.
2. Move to defer a Certificate of Appropriateness for the basement door project at 630 N Dodge St lilltil
details are provided, including retaining wall and stair materials and design; door size, location, and design;
site plan; etc.
~a!j~f~~L~ ~~:~4
.j.;.:;1.:l000:'::Li
- UVU.4 l...; ~ I Y r'LPl~""~ _ i\'l,:2
t-'Alx. ~.l.! \:1'1
Ap.-- .ication for Historic RevL I
Appiic;ltior. for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks 01" propertles
Iccat~d in a historic: district or conservation distri:t pl.lrsuant to Iowa City
Codll SeetJon I4-4C. Guidelines Fer the Historic Rlv!;w process, explanation
of t~ process a.,d regulations can be found in the icwa CIty H1S'tQric Preservation
Hondbook. which is available in the PCO office at City Hall or online at:
~./ClO~o~/HPhondbook
Meeting schedule; The HPC meea the second Thursday of each month. During
the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thur,day. Applications
al'e due in the PCD Office by noon on Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting.
See llttaChed dOl:Umer:t for application deadlines and meeting dates.
.C:or S:aff Use.' LI I I D
Date submitted ...~./3!d...ll........................
:I prr:/fiC2.te of No Material Effect
.,... Certificate of Appropriateness
~aior review
o Intermeejja!:e review
Q Minor review
Applicant Information
(PlGaSQ check prlmary c:ontact penon)
D Own€r "~'I....fd..4;J-;Ah.(-;;.!'-.i..c.,.._..,
Ohone ............. ~......,...................._....~.......,."............, "...................
Address ....k.3..Q.....!.1.~w{).'~J.:~....a.......,....
...b.,(..:.Q...C~...................................:iP.5a:i.Y,<)
email.....~......, .......' ..................w ......................................... .............
o Contractor ....T~...7J.':t:~'2:::L....:...Q1.iJ....~..~~..... ...;,:..Y
j 6/','(/ ~ . I ~.. P ~ ..,.,/)~ .B'd
Address ...::p...... .l...1:';;4.~.L..<::.~Z~..(.{.'.;u.. ...7;;;................"...
..f!..:plit::.{;.$..J;4.f.......;;[;/l..................r.iP :.:t7.::.?;t. 7
Phonc...,....;.~:9...21:.1.0..5':'~.:d.........,...........,.,......
ema!l.......,...............................................ww.....................................
o Consultant ...--.... .............................-............,..........................
Address ...,.... .........._..............._... ......w......_...................................
.....,.....,.... .......................,... ................__..................:z:ip ....... _w.......
PhOM................................... .........._..................,................_..~......
............................""".t....,.............................._........................u................u...
email ....lIflll...........Hl....n....u.............t.........................I..............................
Application Requirements
Attached are tf'1Q'follcwing Items:
o Site plan
o Floor plans
B' Building e!evatiMs
J3: Photographs
o Product information
[J Other,..........................~..............,..................................
If the proposed project entails an addition. a new structure or
Ol si&nlfic:ant alteratiQ" to an existing litruc:tl.ll"e, pIQue submit a
site plan. f1t;jol' pians, building I!levadons and phot~rapr".l..
If the proposed project i.s 2l minor alteration to !l structure,
pielUe provide drawings and photographs to suffICiently
dellcdbe the scooe of tho project.
Provide a w:-!tten description of the proposed project on the
second Pa&c of this appliclltion.
Property Information
::.'..:.:~:::::=::~=~===:=~:::::
Use of Propertr.....{ffJS.f2fWt1L;............................
D3te constructed (if known)......._................,.....................................
Historic Designation
o This property is a local historic landmark
OR
o This pl'OFerty is located In the:
g Bl'ewn Street Historic Di:trict
[j College Green HiStoric District
o East Colloge Street Hinoric District
[J Lon~lIow Historic: District
[J Summit Street Historic Dlstrit:t
D Woodlawn Historic: District
o Clark Street Conservation District
[J CoIlGge Hill Conservation DIstrict
[J Dc:arborn Street Conservation District
(J Go-vernor.Lucas Street Conservation District
Within the dlst,ict. this property is classified as:
~ ContribUting
o Noncontributing
D Nonnlstoric
I Project Type
;m Alteration of an eXiSting building (ie. siding-and window
replacement. skylights, window opening alterations. new
decks. porch rcconrtl'lJction, balU$tClr I'Qpai:- or similar)
D Addition to an exiscing building (includes d~ks and ramps)
o Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. por::h.
enimn')'s, decorative trim. baluste~ or similar)
o Conrtrucl;ion of new building
C1 Repair or restoration of ~n existlnil stl"l./cture that wlll nct
ehar.ge Its a.ppearance -
Cl Other....... ...m.............. ........._...... ...........................__.. ........ .........
-~t
-)
~.
"-'.
~
r~'-----'
II .
] f
I [
~ f
i l
i.
! i
---~\
OJ
~ ';
~ 1 [
~~t~ ;
\l~ t ~
b~ \.>_ ~
~ .J::. ~
~ ~~
~ X'~
-!::;~
'-':
\J:\:::.'
\
\
t:~~ fC?~
li~~~ ~~
I: ("\. -hr
Ii ::t.. ~ ~ \1
I! r(> Q\ ..., ~
if ~ ~ ~
~~ ... ~ i
....... ~ <-..,. I .
..----.___._u__._'___..'.__:_--~=,~:.::~-~~:~.________, f~~~~ ~.- ---t,~-----' '--1 n
''\:'
"".
,
',,\.
'. ~
',.
"~: .
"~"
/ i
,/ ,
//' i
/'/
/~ '-'
,'/ .~
//
//
//
--------~ .
l
r -
!
1
i
i
i
I ..
1
!
t
!
--J
I
-l
( !
q
I j r\
!L '1 \.
l..-~ \
I I \
"
r \
\
\
\,
, -
;
i
1
~L
~s.~
..)..~ ~
~~o
, ';'"
1<'~~
~<.I">"Q
~~~
~..\ '\S" \:1
\.
'::l>
-~
~
~
+o~
.")> CSJ
'~
~O
i":>~
'\.,~ '\
"'-,J
~
I:--
c:..
\'
Staff Report
Historic Review for 841/845 Maggard Street
District: dark Street Conservation District
dassification: Non- Historic
May 27, 2010
The applicant, Tracy Barkalow, is requesting approval for a proposed project at 837 Maggard Street, a non-
historic property the dark Street Conservation District. The applicants are seeking approval to apply vinyl
siding.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
I. 0 /OWtl Oiy Histone Presermtion Guidelines jor Alterations
4.5 Siding
Sttl.llCommentJ-
This building was built in c. 1980 and is considered non- historic in the conservation district.
The applicant is proposing to cover the existing siding with vinyl siding. Details of the proposed siding have
not been provided.
The Guidelines have an exception in 4.5 Siding for non-contributing properties in Conservation Districts that
allows the application of synthetic siding provided
· All sources of moisture that have caused damage to the structure are corrected and the damage
repaired prior to the application of the siding.
· Historic architectural features such as window trim, brackets, moldings, raftertails, columns,
balusters, and similar details are not covered, removed, cut, or otherwise damaged. Unless
severely deteriorated, historic wood siding must not be removed.
· To the extent possible, the synthetic siding appears similar to the original wood siding in
exposure, texture, and design.
· Trim boards extend in front of the face of the siding.
Under Section 3.3 Exceptions for Non-historic Properties, it states "In order to qualify for an exceptions, the
proposed change to the exterior of a non-historic property must comply with the following criteria:
1. Does not further detract from the historic character of the district
2. Does not create a false historic character
3. Is compatible with the style and character of the historic property
The section further goes on to list the use of synthetic siding on existing buildings as an example of an
exception for non-historic properties.
In Staff's opinion, this project meets the exception laid out in the guidelines. Staff believes that the
installation of vinyl siding on this property will not impact the historic integrity of the district or property.
.I? ecommended AI ot/on
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 841/845 Maggard Street as presented in
the application.
Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or
properties 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.org/HPhandbook
For Staff use:
Date submitted: '5 I :3 I /0
o Certificate of No Material Effect
;Q:: Certificate of Appropriateness
~ Major review
o Intermediate Review
o Minor review
The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must
comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
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 Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting.
See attached document for a lication deadlines and meetin dates.
LJ Property Owner Name: 7ttltv'f ~Uuvv/
Email: ?;t~td~N......tJ . 1"'"7 Phone Number: (.3 1m .]-''1- Q' l{ t(
Address: I L\ 0 MV'l ~ to \o\J ~ 't'\. c..<,.OO
City: '1. oW" t"\..A"""\ State: ~ Zip Code: 5 l' ,,<.::;)
[l] Contractor / Consultant Name: S ItM t.
Email:
Phone Number: (
Address:
City:
Zip Code:
7 or.
Address:
,?
[l] This property is a local historic landmark.
OR
~hiS Property is within a historic or co~servation district (c~oose location):
II Brown Street Historic District [;1i!] College Green Historic District
o East College Street Historic District [;1i!] Longfellow Historic District
B!lI Woodlawn Historic District (.; Clark Street Conservation District
B!lI College Hill Conservation District !~ Dearborn Street Conservation District
B!lI Governor-Lucas Street Conservation
District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
B!lI Contributing XNoncontributing [@ Nonhistorie
Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials.
Applications without necessary materials may be rejected.
LID Addition
(Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.)
[ill Building Elevations [ill Floor Plans W1J Photographs
[ill Product Information [ill Site Plans
LID Alteration
(Typically projects entailing work such 8S siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or
porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to
describe the scope of the project are sufficient.)
[ill Building Elevations
LID Construction of new building
[ill Building Elevations
D Product Information
LID Demolition
(Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as
porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.)
D Photographs D Proposal of Future Plans
LID Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance.
~ D Photographs mi. Product Information
~~ther: 51~LfI'(P
:3 Pl_ 00""0< th, p,~~t;oo P'Mn" .t 356-5243 ,,, materi.l, whl,h ncr' to be Indo<kd with "l'Pll~tlon.
D
Photographs
o
Product Information
D
D
Floor Plans
Site Plans
D
Photographs
Project Description:
V 1.-N..... \..
51A>L
,--I ~"""" t
Materials to be Used:
v ~ "t \.. ) .k:' j:..tJ ~
Exterior Appearance Chanl!:es:
e (, ( "IJ U (J
'" t\ 1 ( 11
rV tJ" , 116UA. H<J:)()
Ppdadm/histpreslappforhistoricrev - lillin.doc
Staff Report
May 27,2010
Historic Review for 837 Maggard Street
District: dark Street Conservation District
dassification: Non-Contributing
The applicant, Tracy Barkalow, is requesting approval for a proposed project at 837 Maggard Street, a non-
contributing property the dark Street Conservation District. The applicants are seeking approval to apply
vinyl siding.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
<I. () /o'Wtt City mstone Pmserwtion Guidelines /Or Altemtions
4.5 Siding
Stq(7Comments
This two-story gable roof house features a broad front porch across the gable end and an addition to the SW
comer. The alterations to the front porch and the application of wide replacement siding seriously impair the
integrity of the property. For these reasons, it is considered non-contributing in the Conservation District.
The applicant is proposing to cover the existing siding with vinyl siding. Details of the proposed siding have
not been provided.
The Guidelines have an exception in 4.5 Siding for non-contributing properties in Conservation Districts that
allows the application of synthetic siding provided
· All sources of moisture that have caused damage to the structure are corrected and the damage
repaired prior to the application of the siding.
· Historic architectural features such as window trim, brackets, moldings, rafter tails, columns,
balusters, and similar details are not covered, removed, cut, or otherwise damaged. Unless
severely deteriorated, historic wood siding must not be removed.
· To the extent possible, the synthetic siding appears similar to the original wood siding in
exposure, texture, and design.
. Trim boards extend in front of the face of the siding.
Under Section 3.2 Exceptions to the Imm City Guidelines, it states, "These exceptions are intended to provide
additional flexibility in cases where a proposed construction project does not significantly affect the
architectural character of a historic structure.
There are cases where the structure is considered non-contributing because of the application of synthetic
siding, as in this case. It is up to the Commission to determine if the application of vinyl siding will further
move this structure from being a contributing property in the conservation district.
In Staff's opinion, it is questionable if this project meets the exception as laid out in the guidelines. Staff is
concerned that installing vinyl siding will perpetuate the non-conformity of the property. Staff also believes
that evidence of what is under the existing siding needs to be presented and that a better alternative to vinyl
siding is the application of fiber cement board siding. In order to make a more complete analysis, staff
believes further information is required.
Staff recommends the approval of 3-5" reveal, smooth faced, fiber cement board lap siding, with minimwn
4" trim around all windows and doors, if it can be proven that the existing siding and any original siding
underneath cannot be repaired.
Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or
properties 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.org/HPhandbook
For Staffuse:
Date submitted: -5 I S I / b
.0 Certificate of No Material Effect
~ Certificate of Appropriateness
~ Major review
o Intermediate Review
o Minor review
The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must
comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
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 Thursday two weeks prior to the meeting.
See attached document for a lication deadlines and meetin dates.
C] Property Owner Name: Tit 1\ c.."'1 6^~~~'-()W
Email: \' ~t."1. e &MK.ftuw''\(:rt\c.S.COM Phone Number: (3" ) 35"\ -~~~L{
Address: t t \t:l \-\\N\.' ~ W
City: lo.H#.. ~ e
~ 'Tl 4b~
State: :I-A
Zip Code: <; 2. z. '\ \.n
[j] Contractor / Consultant Name:
Email:
Jif't11t.
Phone Number: (
Address:
City:
Address:
. osed Project..
yr :r()~l~ (I-1'1 Jf\
>1 t \{ ~
?
f
OJ This property is a local historic landmark.
7
OR
~ Tbi, Proporty i, within a hi,torio 0' ooo,",,,,,tion di,triot (0:00,", location),
r . Brown Street Historic District r.m College Green Historic District
r.m East College Street Historic District r.m Longfellow Historic District
I2l Woodlawn Historic District ~ Clark Street Conservation District
I2l College Hill Conservation District I2l Dearborn Street Conservation District
[f] Governor-Lucas Street Conservation
District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
[f] Contributing XNOnCOntributing
~
r.m Nonhistoric
Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials.
Applications without necessary materials may be rejected.
L2] Addition
(Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.)
IQI Building Elevations IQI Floor Plans IQI Photographs
IQI Product Information IQI Site Plans
GBl Alteration
(Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or
porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to
describe the scope of the project are sufficient.)
IQI Building Elevations
L2l Construction of new building
IQI Building Elevations
IQI Product Information
L2l Demolition
(Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as
porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.)
IQI Photographs IQI Proposal of Future Plans
L2l Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance.
IQI ~tOgraPhS Q] Product Information
1'56" Other: 'I-()1. /1/ lP
.F Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials whieh need to be included with application.
IQI
Photographs
IQI
Product Information
IQI
IQI
Floor Plans
Site Plans
IQI
Photographs
Project Description:
V>"N~ S-'-LU NIo
bIN
t '1..." c..4~
't) f- ~ Y1oA- t... -
Materials to be Used:
\Jr-N~L
s~~~
Exterior Appearance Chan2es:
C (t~.,J U{J
<c. ~'n. rtW'41.
M 1\', c. \\
f'J (1 '" H 6~t)OUO
Ppdadm/histpres/appforhistoricrev - fillin,doc
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESER V A TION COMMISSION
MAY 13,2010
EMMA 1. HARV AT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, David McMahon,
Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dana Thomann
STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker
OTHERS PRESENT: Heidi Anderson, Thane Kading, Ann Khan, Dennis Kirkwood, Marion Love, Owen
Wagner
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
The Commission voted 9-0 (Thomann absent) to recommend approval of the revised Iowa City Historic
Preservation Handbook to the City Council.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
617 North Johnson Street.
Kuecker said that the applicant has withdrawn this request at this time.
1143 Maple Street.
Kuecker said this is an application to build a garage with the dimensions of 24 feet by 32 feet. She said the height to
the peak is just over 20 feet. Kuecker said the materials and design are intended to mimic the style and detail of the
house.
Kuecker stated that this is a ranch-style, non-historic house on a non-historic street in the Longfellow Historic
District. She said the proposed garage would be located to the rear of the property. Kuecker added that the driveway
is a single-lane driveway to start with, expanding to two car widths in the rear. She said the impact on the street
would be minimal, and in fact there is already a small driveway coming off the street there now.
Kuecker said the reason for the size of the garage is that the owners would like to store a sailboat, which requires the
additional height. She said staff believes the proposed garage meets the historic preservation guidelines. Kuecker
said because the property is a non-historic property on a non-historic street, there will be no impact on the historic
integrity of the house or the neighborhood, and staff recommends approval as presented in the application.
Michaud asked about the garage doors and if there would be two rows of windows. Kirkwood confirmed this and
added that there would just be one garage door.
MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for a garage at
1143 Maple Street, as proposed in the application. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent).
1207 Muscatme Avenue.
Kuecker said that this application was submitted by the City. She said the property was purchased as part of the
University Neighborhood Partnership. Kuecker said that $50,000 worth of rehabilitation will be put into the house,
and then the house will be resold as affordable housing. She said that there is a requirement that the house be owner
Historic Preservation Commission
May 13,2010
Page 2
occupied for at least ten years, as part of the City's effort to influence some of the areas that are partially rental and
partially owner occupied into being more owner occupied with more ownership in the neighborhood.
Kuecker said that the rehab specialists submitted a memo that outlines the project. She said that there are several
aspects to the project. Kuecker said that first, there will be a repair of the porch column, taking out the pier, jacking
up that comer, rebuilding the pier, and then rebuilding the stairs to match what is existing.
Kuecker said the second part involves the replacement of the door with a taller door, reusing and replicating the
trim.
Kuecker said the third part involves the windows, where across the bottom of the windows is the back of a kitchen
counter. She said the proposal is to make the windows shorter in order to change this when the kitchen is
remodeled.
Kuecker said the fourth part involves the window in the bathroom where the applicant would like to install a shower.
She said the applicant would like to come up with a solution that does not require the removal of the window, but if
that is not possible, the applicant is asking for approval of the removal of the window at this time.
Kuecker stated that the fifth part of the project involves the garage. She said that currently there is a large gasoline
tank near the comer that will need to be removed to make sure there is not any contamination of the soil. Kuecker
said that the applicant is concerned that the removal of the tank will make the already unstable garage even more
unstable. She said the applicant wants to seek approval ahead of time rather than forgiveness should that happen.
Kuecker said that staff feels that all those requests are reasonable and recommends approval of the application with
the condition that the window and door specifications be approved by staff.
Swaim said that since the Commission is concerned about outbuildings and because they are going away, perhaps
the Commission should keep a catalog of Iowa City outbuildings just for the Commission's own use so that there are
samples available when someone asks for specifics about what something should look like. Kuecker noted that that
was a good idea and something she would begin doing.
Wagner said that he felt there is no way to get the tank out of there without destroying the garage. Kuecker said
there are also no footings or a foundation under the garage. Wagner said the blocks are not in bad shape, but all of
the mortar is gone. He said the framing of the roof is fairly square. Wagner said it is coming down; the question is
whether it should be taken down to rebuild it. Kuecker said that if this is taken down the intention is to recycle the
blocks.
Downing said there are three doors on the house front, back, and side. He said that on other foursquare houses,
there is a short side door, because of the landing of the stairwell. Downing said he believes that short door is a
defining feature of a foursquare house.
Downing said they may not be able to raise it. Downing said that he would be reluctant to change the height of the
door. He said that for the window, we are not seeing a floor plan of the bathroom, so it is hard to evaluate.
Downing said that there are other options.
Wagner said that in another house, where the shower stall went in, the solution was a solid piece of glass and tile all
the way around the window with glass on the inside. He said that from the outside, one would never know.
Michaud said there is a pair of windows on the northwest comer of the house. She said those would be the right size
to replicate for the replacement kitchen windows.
Swaim said she has no problem with short windows. She said that when there are a variety of windows, it is best to
line them up across horizontally, when possible.
Michaud asked if the replacement windows over the kitchen counter would be metal clad or wood. Kuecker
confirmed this, saying the material will need to be approved by her.
Historic Preservation Commission
May 13, 2010
Page 3
MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1207 Muscatine
Avenue with the condition that the window and door specifications be approved by staff. Swaim seconded the
motion.
Downing said that he would not vote in favor of this, because of the bathroom window and the door
MOTION: Downing moved to amend the motion to not allow the applicant to change the height of the door
and to not allow the removal of the bathroom window. Baldridge seconded the motion.
Baldridge said it seems that it would be less expensive to retain the window and just keep the appearance from the
outside. Ackerson said that with a window that can only be accessed from the outside, if any repair work needs to
be done, then the siding must be tom off to get at it. Wagner said that if the aluminum storm window was left, it
could be unscrewed, the sashes could be removed, and the glass would still be there. He said the whole wall is tile
except for the glass that is set into the tile.
Regarding the door, Trimble asked if there are other doors on other houses in the neighborhood similar to the current
one that are taller than six feet. Downing said that one could probably find a foursquare with a taller floor-to-floor
height that might have a taller side door.
Trimble stated that if this is a really identifiable feature of a foursquare, then it should be retained.
The amendment to the motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent).
Baldridge said that the City is going to be rehabbing this house and has no idea who is going to buy it. Kuecker
confirmed this.
Wagner asked Kuecker if they City plans to replace the door or just wants the option to replace it. Kuecker said the
City wants the option to do it. Baldridge said that if the HPC denies the modification, then someone would have to
come back and make the case for why it is not a character-defining feature.
Michaud said that changing the door would just bring it up to modem standards. She said it is the door someone
would use to get into the kitchen.
McMahon said that this is why the Commission needs to discuss how strongly people feel about this, because the
motion might have just been left to be worded "as recommended by staff," versus a strong recommendation that it
not be changed.
The main motion, as amended, carried on a vote of 8-1 (Michaud no, Thomann absent).
1107 Clark Court:
Kuecker said this project involves the reconstruction of a porch. She said the concrete is crumbling, and the
applicant proposes to replace the concrete with a wood deck, referring to a drawing in the packet.
Kuecker said that staff has some concerns about changing to a wood deck. She stated that this minimal house does
not have many colonial features, but one of them is a concrete stoop. Kuecker said that staff feels this is a character-
defining feature, and the design, as proposed, increases the width and the depth of it. She said staff recommends that
the stoop actually be replaced with concrete.
Kuecker said that a balustrade and handrail would likely be needed when the porch is replaced, and staff feels these
should be approved by staff, because it is not 100% clear in the drawing what is being proposed. She said if the
columns are decayed and need to be repaired or replaced, they need to be repaired or replaced with similar, round
columns. Kuecker stated that the design should be approved by staff, with the width of the porch not being
increased. She said if the owners are committed to wood, then a better-drawn design needs to be submitted for
revIew.
McMahon asked if anyone knew what the price difference would be for a concrete stoop. Kuecker said she did not
know. Wagner asked if the concrete stoop is original, and Kuecker said she was fairly certain that it was.
Historic Preservation Commission
May 13, 2010
Page 4
Michaud said she believes it is best to replace it as it was. She said the house might have the shutters, but the
windows are still originals, and she did not see any reason to add an artificial feature to it with a wood deck.
Baldridge said he does not really see what is gained by this expansion. Kuecker said she believes the reason this is
being expanded is because the owners were planning to build the wood deck on top of the old without removing it.
Ackerson said that the interest in having railings is to assist going in and out. Kuecker responded that once the steps
are reconstructed, they might be of a height that would require railings.
Swaim asked, if the owners built a new cement stoop, if the railings would not be needed. Kuecker said that railings
might still be needed, because the top step may be greater than 30 inches ofT the ground. She said that if the owners
are replacing what is original, they would be required to have railings to meet code.
Wagner asked about the rise on the first step. Kuecker said that the step is broken. She said that all of the new steps
would have to be even.
Michaud asked if the owners could get by with a pipe railing. Kuecker said she believes so but would have to
consult the building code. She said that a metal railing of some sort would be more appropriate than a wood railing
here. Kuecker said the owners will have to have a railing if the steps are replaced so that they will have to propose
something.
Swaim said that the bottom step is only five inches, as opposed to the others. She said that they all need to be equal
now, so if the owner does not want to raise the top of the porch, that would need to be accommodated by making the
other steps shorter. Wagner said that the minimum rise is 7 Y4. He said that with four steps, the owners could make
this less than 30 inches, perhaps by just lowering the top to get the whole thing under thirty. Wagner said that then a
railing might not be required.
Michaud suggested using a ramp to just slope it upward. Kuecker suggested that if the Commission is leaning
toward requiring the new to be in concrete, then that should be voted on, rather than trying to come up with a design
right now without knowing the dimensions.
Michaud said that it does behoove the Commission to suggest the owners lower the total height of the stairs. She
said that it is going to require this banister otherwise, which is not appropriate to this era of house.
Baker suggested that this could be moved and voted down, requiring the owners to come up with a new plan.
Kuecker said that if the owners rebuild this with concrete steps, it might not even come before the Commission,
because it might be eligible for a certificate of no matcrial effect.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for the porch at 1107
Clark Court. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 0-9 (Thomann absent).
923 Dearborn Street.
Kuecker said this is a non-contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. She said that the
applicant would like to raise the roof of the house approximately 7 Y2 feet to make the upper level usable as living
space. Kuecker said the owners would also like to add dormers to each side. She showed rear and side elevations of
the proposal.
Kuecker said that the guidelines in general recommend against vertical additions, because it often impacts the
historic integrity of the house. She added, however, that because this is a non-contributing house and most of this
end of Dearborn Street is non-contributing as well, staff believes this change in height will not significantly impact
the historic integrity of this house or the district.
Kuecker said that statf does believe there should be more second story windows of the same double-hung type as the
ones on the first floor on the front elevation in order to create a more balanced fayade. She said this will help
prevent large, interrupted areas of siding on the front elevation.
Historic Preservation Commission
May 13, 2010
Page 5
Michaud asked if shutters would have to be added to all of the windows. Kuecker said that shutters are not
something the Commission typically regulates but said the owner was at the meeting to answer questions about the
proj ect.
Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of the project with the conditions that the siding, trim, and other
details match the existing appearance of the house; the new windows being either solid wood or metal clad solid
wood windows; and the front elevation including additional windows, with the final front elevation to be subject to
staff approval.
Baldridge said that this is one of four houses here that are virtually the same. Michaud said that there are five on the
other side of the street, for a total of nine on the street that are very similar. Baldridge pointed out that they are all
non-contributing. Kuecker agreed that they are all non-contributing, and the site inventory forms state that they non-
contributing because of their architectural style.
Michaud asked the owner if she plans to do anything with the partial brick wall in the front. Khan indicated that was
not part of the proJect.
Downing said it is not the Commission's job to consider the structure of the house. He suggested the builder think
about the structure, because adding a second story to a two by four wall underneath might cause a structural
problem.
Khan said that the contractor is going to talk to an engineer. She said it is not going to be a big enough change,
based on what that is already there, and is just adding on a couple of feet to the sides of the house.
Kuecker showed a drawing with the current line of the roof and then the proposed line. She said that the difference
is about 7 i;2 feet. Kuecker said that the pitch of the roof would be the same, but the way the rafters are being used
will make the interior pitch different. She showed the pitch that would be on the exterior, the same as the existing at
8: 12, but showed how the interior pitch would be shallower.
Khan said she hopes that the house will still have a cottage-like feel to it, with the dormers, and that there will not be
a large difference in terms of how it is now. She said she wants to add to the living space but still try to keep some
integrity of the design that was there before.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 923 Dearborn
Street with the conditions that the siding, trim, and other details match the existing appearance of the house;
the new windows being either solid wood or metal clad solid wood windows; and the front elevation including
additional windows, with the final front elevation to be subject to staff approval. McMahon seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent),
730 North Linn Street.
Kuecker said that this project is for an addition, part of which is a garage. She said this house is a Queen Anne style
house on the comer of Linn and Brown Streets, with the main fayade facing Linn Street. Kuecker said the applicant
proposes to construct a two-story addition on the south side of the property, essentially in the location where the
screen porch is but coming farther to the south. She said the ground noor is proposed to be an attached garage, with
the garage door facing Linn Street. Kuecker said that the proposed material type has not been submitted, but the
applicant indicated that everything would be matched to the existing house.
Kuecker said that the guidelines allow for construction of compatible additions but also recommend against
attaching garages unless they are designed to be compatible. She said the guidelines also recommend vehicular
access to be off an alley when available and only from the street when alley access is not feasible. Kuecker said that
this house does have frontage on Brown Street, Linn Street, and an alley. Baldridge said the owners are using the
alley access now, and Kuecker confirmed this. She said the proposed attached garage would have access off of Linn
Street.
Kuecker showed the west elevation, which would be the Linn Street elevation. She showed what would be the front
of the house, with the garage to the south, accessed off Linn Street. Kuecker showed the change on the Brown
Street elevation and the south facing from the alley with the addition section.
Historic Preservation Commission
May 13, 2010
Page 6
Kuecker said that staff has concerns about the scale and mass of the addition, that it is not compatible with the
house. She said it is taller than the existing roof1ine and changes the appearance quite a bit. Kuecker said staff is
also concerned that the proposed vehicular access is not off the alley, which is what the guidelines recommend.
Kuecker said staff does believe that there is a way to construct an attached garage to this property without having the
design overwhelm or distract from the historic character of the house. She said staff also believes a detailed material
list including siding, roofing, foundation; windows, door, etc. will need to be submitted before a full review can be
done for this project. Kuecker said staff recommends that a design professional be employed for such a large
addition to such a historic house. She said the applicant has been notified of staffs concerns, and staff is
recommending deferral until all these issues can be worked out.
Kading, one of the owners of the house, said they really wanted to go ahead and get the opinion of the Commission
on this design. She agreed that this is a large addition but said that the roofline is not larger than the height of the
existing roofline. Kading suggested that they use some type of dormer to make it more similar to the Victorian look
that the house has.
Kading stated that this should not be as big of an issue as it seems to be, because it is a non-contributing property.
Kuecker stated that this actually is a contributing property.
Kading asked if it would make a difference if they put in a dormer. Michaud said she did not think that another
gable is needed so much as the windows that the builder drew in look like 1990s suburban, cathedral windows.
Kading said they would be double hung windows. Michaud said there are so many windows, so that the massing of
the windows exceeds what the historic massing would be. She said the windows do not correspond with the
windows on the rest of the house. Kading said that if they use double hung windows, they would correspond with
the other windows.
Downing said that the problem is that the windows in the house geometrically are completely different than any of
the drawings. He said the house has very long, tall narrow windows. and the sketches show contemporary windows.
Michaud added that typically, the Commission just says that windows have to be the same size and proportion as the
windows on the house.
Michaud said that there is already one triangle, so that could probably be repeated. She said however, the number
and placement of windows does not look like a Victorian distribution of windows.
Downing said that the house is the largest, single investment of one's life, and the addition would be a huge part of
that. He said that the effort made in the owners' representing it to themselves and to the Commission is probably ten
minutes worth of effort. Downing said it is impossible for the Commission to evaluate the proposal based on the
submitted drawings.
Downing said that one problem is the design. Swaim said that it is too hard to get a sense of the depths and the
addition and such, because it is all kind of a flat plane. Downing said that the Grant Street proposal shows a much
more comprehensive design proposal. Kading asked for a copy of that proposal, and Kuecker provided one.
Baldridge asked about the garage and if the owners would be willing to have access off the alley. Kading said that
her husband really does not want to have access off the alley, because they are the only double lot there and want to
keep this as a double lot. She said that if they ever want to split the lot, however, access off the alley would not
allow for that.
Baldridge said that having driven on Linn Street, access from Linn Street into the garage directly would be much
more cumbersome than going via the alley. Wagner said he was also not certain that a curb cut could be put that
close to the intersection and still meet the zoning regulations.
Swaim said it is hard for her to imagine an attached garage on a Queen Anne. She said that it would be worth the
owners' time to get some suggestions or examples of this. Swaim said it might work, but she has not seen it before.
Kuecker showed an example of an attached garage to a house on Park Road, although the house is not a Queen
Anne. She said that the guidelines list an attached garage as not recommended, not disallowed.
Historic Preservation Commission
May 13,2010
Page 7
Kading said that in walking around the neighborhood, there are many attached garages. She said it is frustrating for
them as owners, because this used to be a triplex that was rotting and falling apart. Kading said they have tried to do
a lot and want to keep the original structure.
Downing said that the owners might not intentionally want to change the original structure but would really be
shocked and surprised at how much this really would change the house. Kading said that if the Commission will not
let the owners have an attached garage, then she would probably move, because she is not going to the expense of
building a nice garage if it cannot be attached.
McMahon said there has not been discussion or consensus on that. He said that the point for him is that he cannot
see enough, based on the submitted design, to make a decision. McMahon said that this is Downing's business, and
he feels the same way.
MOTION: McMahon moved to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the application for
730 North Linn Street until a design that meets the guidelines is submitted. Wagner seconded the motion.
The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent).
Swaim said the Commission appreciates all the work the owners have put into this house. Michaud agreed that it
looks fabulous.
604 Grant Street.
Kuecker said the Commission looked at a few different applications for this house last year, including a porch
construction on the front that is under way, window replacement, the demolition of the carport, and the construction
of a detached garage, which has not begun. She said the owner proposes an addition to the rear of the property and
an addition to the north side of the house and now also proposes to retain the carport on the south elevation.
Kuecker said the owners would like to install columns on the carport, keeping the roof structure but installing
columns that will match the columns on the front porch. She said the owners would also remove the chains that are
holding up the carport.
Kuecker said the second part of the application involves an addition to the rear of the property. She showed an
elevation from the south and said the addition would be about a nine-foot. ten-inch extension of the rear fac;ade, with
a fourteen-foot by nine-foot, ten-inch screened porch behind that. Kuecker said the addition would extend the rake
of the existing house. and the new windows would be placed to match the existing window pattern. She said there is
currently a sunroom that has the three windows, and the owner wants to match those on the upper level.
Kuecker said that the siding and foundation would match the existing siding and foundation. She showed the north
elevation and the rear elevation, along with a photograph of what the rear elevation looks like now. Kuecker said the
two small windows on the rear fac;ade would be moved back to the new rear fac;ade. She said the proposed addition
also has a gable dormer on the upper level.
Anderson, the owner, said they have decided not to do the dormer, because it will make everything so much easier).
Kuecker directed Commission members to therefore ignore the dormer.
Kuecker stated that the rear porch has a height and pitch to match the carport roof and the proposed addition on the
north: She said the piers of the porch would be bricked to match the existing foundation, and the wood lattice will
be installed to match the existing. Kuecker said that all other materials will also match the existing materials.
Regarding the addition to the side, Kuecker said it would be a small mudroom addition of approximately nine-foot
eight by nine-foot ten. She said that it is designed to mimic the carport, which may at one point have been a side
porch, and give symmetry to the house. Kuecker said the materials will again match the existing.
Kuecker said that the guidelines allow for the construction of additions and recommend that additions be placed to
the rear of the property or at least be offset 18 inches from the front fac;ade. She said that both of these additions
meet those requirements.
Kuecker said staff recommends approval of this application, with the condition that the dormer be removed, which
the owner has agreed to, and with the condition that the foundation matches all the way around the addition. She
Historic Preservation Commission
May 13,2010
Page 8
said that one elevation shows a wood foundation on the side porch, and staff feels that it should be the matching
brick all the way around, mostly because of the maintenance that the wood against the ground would require.
Ackerson said the west elevation showed some stairs going right into the garage. Kuecker said there are currently
existing stairs there. She said the owners would keep those, as there is a door there. Michaud said that a house at
1719 Muscatine is a very similar house that would show what this house looked like originally.
McMahon said that he walks by this house every day. He said that there has been a lot of improvement made here,
after the many permutations the house has gone through and is going through.
Trimble said she thinks the addition is very good. She said that someone looking straight on from the streetscape
would not notice anything different except that it looks better.
MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 604 Grant
Street, subject to the condition that the foundation should be brick on all elevations to match the existing
foundation. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent).
PUBLIC DlSCUSSION ON THE HISTORIC PRESERV ATlON GUIDELINES:
Kuecker said she had distributed one piece of correspondence regarding the guidelines from a person who lives in
the Longfellow District on Grant Street. She said she had made a presentation just outlining the changes.
Kuecker said she could review the important items. She said the rewrite of the handbook was done in order to make
the historic review process more user friendly and make some of the smaller projects not need to come before the
Commission but be approvable by staff or the chair and staff.
Kuecker said the levels of review have been proposed for change. She said that currently there are four levels of
review. Kuecker said the first level is currently a certificate of no material effect approved by the chair and staff
when like is to be replaced with like.
Kuecker said that currently minor reviews involve the review of projects on non-historic properties in conservation
districts and are approved by staff. She said that intermediate reviews apply to properties within conservation
districts and are approved by the chair and staff. Kuecker said that remaining are the major reviews that are done by
the Commission at its monthly meetings.
Kuecker said that system has been changed that so that minor reviews are still done by staff but are applied to any
property as long as the application is for a pre-approved item. She said, for example, that if a specific brand or type
of window is approved for a specific situation, then that could be put on the pre-approved list. Kuecker said the
Commission would vote on what should be on the pre-approved list. She said that then anyone willing to use what
was previously approved can have approval done by staff signoff. Kuecker said if there was a situation where
something did not seem quite right, she would bring it before the Commission or at least the chair.
Kuecker said that the intermediate review could then be used for any project on essentially any property, except for
contributing properties in historic districts. She said that anything requiring an exception to the guidelines would
always be bumped up to the next higher review level. Kuecker said that a major review would still be required for
contributing properties in historic districts, which would still be coming to the Commission for the review.
Kuecker said the other major change is in the guidelines themselves. She said she added illustrations to help
demonstrate the guidelines and make everything clearer.
Kuecker said that she also added a lot of cross-referencing into the guidelines themselves. She said the guidelines
have also been rewritten to incorporate more exceptions, when the Commission has had discussions on them in the
past ten years.
Kuecker said that she also added to the guidelines the section on energy efficiency.
Kuecker said the design guidelines for multi-family buildings were changed to reflect the design guidelines for
multi-family buildings in the zoning code. She said that currently, new multi-family buildings being constructed
Historic Preservation Commission
May 13,2010
Page 9
outside of historic districts have more design guidelines than the ones being built within historic districts, so those
were adjusted to be in line with the zoning code.
Kuecker stated that the portions of the zoning code that are relevant have been incorporated into the new handbook.
She said that because the handbook is also a general resource for people, she added a short history of the
descriptions of all of the City's historic districts and updated the maps to reflect changes in the districts, including
changes in the designations of specific properties.
Kuecker said the Commission will vote on the handbook as written or will vote on an amended version and then
send it to the City Council for its consideration.
Swaim commented that the revision involved an enormous amount of work, and it contains many improvements.
The Commission members discussed the inclusion of specifics versus the need for flexibility and accommodation,
resulting from the way conversation reveals new information as an application is discussed. Baldridge said that
sometimes it is very difficult to make cut and dry decisions, and a project might be an evolution of more than one
application.
Regarding the minor and intermediate review process, Kuecker said she would provide the Commission with a
monthly informational memo regarding these reviews that took place during the previous month.
MOTION: Swaim moved to recommend approval of the revised Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, as
presented, to the City Council. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann
absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 8, 20 10.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's April 8, 2010 meeting,
as written. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Thomann absent).
OTHER:
Kuecker referred to a couple of handouts, including an issue of The Planner discussing a feature on historic
preservation month. She said the Commission is invited to two events, one of which is the Corridor CLG
Conference in Cedar Rapids at the Historic Center from nine to three, regarding historic preservation and disasters.
Kuecker said that at least a couple of commissioners need to attend educational conferences every year, and this
seminar would qualify.
Kuecker said the other event is the Historic Home Tour on Sunday, and the addresses are in The Planner.
Kuecker referred to a couple of memos that she sent to City Council regarding additional information about the
Dubuque economic incentives. She said that coming up with some ways to use financial incentives in Iowa City
will be on the Commission's agenda after the guidelines are completed.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
z
o
en
en
:e
:eo
00::
uO
zu
Ow
_0::
....Wo
<(u....
>zO
o::<(N
Wo
enZ
Ww
0::....
0......
U<(
0::
o
....
en
J:
en I I
--
N I I
I I
....
....
.... I I
-- I I
.... I I
....
~
.... I I
-- I I
0 I I
....
en I I
-- I I
en I I
N I I
.... I I
-- I I
CO
CO I I
-- I I
l"- I I
0 I I
.... I I
-- I I
(0
l"- I I
N I I
-- I I
LO
M I I LU
.... X X X X I X X I X -- X X
-- I I 0
LO
CO X X X X X X X I LU X X X
-- I --
~ I 0
.... I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.... I
-- I Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
M
~
.... LU LU LU LU LU
.... I X X X X X X
I -- -- -- -- --
-- I 0 0 0 0 0
N
~ I LU LU
.... I -- X X X X -- X X X X X
-- I 0 0
....
a..
>< C'? ..- N C'? ..- ..- N 0 N ..- C'? N
W ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
:e 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
N N N ~ N N N N N N N N
0:: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'? C'?
....
en
<( ~
.... :e 0
Z 0 0:: en ~ W <( <( ~
W J: ..J 0 en Z U Z
~ .... W ..J Z :e :J <( <(
J: 3: <( W
ui .... :J 0 :e <( 0 :J 0::
Z a.. Z <( LL
<.:> en <(
0 W <.:> en Z 0 ..., <.:> Z 0{
en 0 Z ~ 0 ::> Z W
0:: 0:: 0{ Z J: 6 <( ..J W
W W 0 W Z <( <( <( .... :e :e aJ Z
3: J: <( :e <.:>
:e ~ ..J ~ aJ :e u Z 0
<( ~ <( <( 0 ::> I,) 0 3: J: ~ ~
Z aJ aJ 0 W :e :e a.. en .... ....
E
2
o
::l
"CO
Q) 0
~z ...
(.) -- Q)
>< Ol.c
W"SE
:;::'Q)Q)
C::Q)~
c.....Q)E
Q) c:: en CIl
en~:90.....
Q).c.....ZO
C:<l:III1Z
II II!:!:!~ II
XOOZ
;>:
w
~