Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2011 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, May 12, 2011 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma Harvat Hall 6:00 p.m. A) Call to Order B) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda C) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 815 E Washington Street 2. 610 Iowa Avenue 3. 4 Bella Vista Place D) Consideration of minutes for Apri114, 2011 E) Election of Officers F) Other G) Adjournment lc»va (:it~~ Historic Preservation Commission Cara l I.all, ~101~; Zl'~sis(iir~i~lori ~tric:~t, I~~tiv.a i,.it1. T A. 5'3240 MEMORANDUM Date: May 12, 2011 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner Re: Certificates of No Material Effect, Intermediate Reviews, and Minor Reviews The Historic Preservation Handbook requires a report to the HPC at each meeting of any projects that have been approved administratively. Below are the projects approved since the April meeting. Certificates of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review 1. 324 Lucas Street -Stoop replacement 2. 1107 Clark Court -Stoop replacement 3. 525 Oakland Avenue -Stair replacement 4. 530 S Governor Street -Basement egress window Intermediate Review -Chair and Staff review 1. 734 Oakland Avenue -fence review, alteration to previously approved COA Minor Review -Pre-approved items -Staff review 1. None Staff Report Historic Review for 815 E Washington Street District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing May 12, 2011 The applicants, Pi Beta Phi Sorority, are requesting approval for a proposed project at 815 E. Washington Street, a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. The applicants are seeking approval to remove and reconstruct an existing retaining wall. Aunlicable ReQUlations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.8 Masonry 4.12 Site and Landscaping 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition Staff Comments This sorority house was constructed in 1925 and is a good example of Tudor Revival design. The sorority remains largely as built, with the exception of the later addition of the dormers and the recent reconstruction of the eastern retaining wall and porte-cochere columns. The applicants have done considerable work to rebuild and restore other brick landscaping/retaining walls on the site and now wish to rebuild/restore the retaining wall on the west side of the front stair. Currently the wall is brick with a stone cap along the stair and then changes to a wooden retaining wall. The applicants would like to rebuild the existing brick portion to match existing. They would also like to remove the wooden portion and replace it with a brick retaining wall to match the wall on the east side of the driveway. The new retaining wall would likely be a reinforced concrete retaining wall that is faced with brick to match the existing brick. The applicants intend to reuse as much brick as possible for the retaining wall and any additional bricks will be of the same type and color. The applicants also intend to extend the brick wall to the west along the front portion of the property for approximately 5'. The guidelines allow for the repair and replacement of deteriorating elements with like materials. The guidelines also recommend replacement of non-historic features with more compatible materials. In Staff's opinion, these changes will not have a significant impact on the property. The wooden wall was not an original feature of the sorority and was added at a later date. Provided the new brick wall matches the existing brick walls in material, color, joint profile, and height, the impact on the look of the property will be minimal. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 815 E Washington Street as presented in the application with the condition that the new wall must match the existing retaining wall in material, color, joint profile, mortar color, height, and overall appearance. ,_. .,_ ;. Application for Historic Revi 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.org/HistoricPreservation For Staff Use: Date submitted: ~ / 2/~ t~ ^ Certificate of No material Effect .(Certificate of Appropriateness (&Major review ^ Intermediate review ^ 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. Property Owner/Applicant Information p(~P~lease checkprimary contact pe son)~~ ^ Property Owner Name:~~ f tt'~ ~~~~~ ~~7-iu~~~~ Email: Phone Number: ( ) Address: ~~ V~ w~~~~/~TT~~ City: ~ >/ G~ State: ~ ~ Zip Co~~d-e^^~22 ^ Contractor /Consultant Name: ~ ~ ~/ ~~t ~~ Email: Phone Number: ~~ ~~f '~ /~ - . . ~. Address: '-AAF l y~ I ~,,.~ /~--~ I t_~ City: ' ~~l't ~/ 1 I `f Address: Use of Property: State: Zip Code: ~~%~'''~`T~ rr Proposed Pwrtoject Information, ,1 A ~i ~ ~~~1 l ~~~~ ~ ~ ~W1't ~ Date Constructed (if known): Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ^ This property is a local historic landmark. OR ^ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ^ Brown Street Historic District ^ East College Street Historic District ^ Northside Historic District ^ Woodlawn Historic District College Hill Conservation District ^ Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing ^ Noncontributing ^ College Green Historic District ^ Longfellow Historic District ^ Summit Street Historic District ^ Clark Street Conservation District ^ Dearborn Street Conservation District ^ Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications wi hout necCessary m{a'teri~als may be postponed. ^ A i ion ~ r~~G~l`~ 1 L~~, (Typicall projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) Building Elevations ^ Floor Plans ~ Photographs O Product Information ~ Site Plans ^ 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.) ^ Building Elevations ^ Photographs ^ Product Information ^ Construction of new building ^ Building Elevations ^ Floor Plans ^ Photographs ^ Product Information ^ Site Plans ^ 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.) ^ Photographs ^ Proposal of Future Plans ^ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ^ Photographs ^ Product Information ^ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: R~i~~ ~xt~71 ~- M~~ Iz ~- ~i`~ s 1~~ m ~ MAi~ ~NTI~Y `~l'~WA~-~- G~4~~oX, r~'-2~~~, np ~~ ~x-r~~~o~ a~ (~~v~J MA-~r~lz`( vJ,~~-~-- ~~©~1 G~ 'Cl~~ ~4-~i~ ~Z ~ D~ J~1o1~ -rove-C~~P~ ~nJA~t~~~r~~ ~ ~~~~. ~~ -~ ~ Materials to be Used: ~t~~11~~1~ c-n~Gt~~ ~~ VV ~~ ~ v~ri~- ~lZl~~ ~i1~- ~ ~ ~~o w1 ~~ M~S~ G ~ ~ ~X~~TI,~~- v~~-t- Exterior Appearance Changes: AbDI-f1o1SAL, MI~~IZYW/~LL. appforhistoricreview-pdf WASHINGTON STREET - ohu ----- o h u ---- o h u------- h u ----'- EXISnNC wood PLANTER / RETAINING wAi1s ~ S .: .. 5 !7 I ' 3 O NEW EXL571NG c ~ wAtlt STEPs /s f / O ,~~ S C ~ -- ''s I ~l \ xl ~• ~' 4 815E WASHINGTON ST. P/ BETA PHl OPEN TO BET.OW u o.s • wESr .. r, '.~~ II II I I I I EXISTING BRICK RETNNING MWJ.S I II o I I II S II C II II I I II I I I I NEW RETAINING WALL. I I WRIT VWEER - STONE CAP II I I II I I ~ II 7 II ~ TT' f I I NEW BRICK PAVERS / CONCH I I ~~ RAISE GRADE ~~ I I ~IINL~E TO TfiTfi TO E~ STO~! I 1 ii O II S II N C II 1 3.66' EASE FACE OF EXLSTI IVNl F f I 1 P LINE 1 ~ I i i EXISTIWG BRICK RETAINING WALL; 1 O I II ~ I II S I I 1 EXISTWC WOOD STRUCTURE A80 I I L r I II I II I II I 11 1 11 ~~ i ~T 111 EDGE OF o NEW DRNE s G EXISTING w00D RETAWING WAL O 3 C AC BIKE RACK a ~ ~ c: N~ d/ tY W ~,:~i ao .- n l7 Z ~ + Z Z ~r ~ 0 :i W 00 0 ~ ~~ 0~3 w x z W .S-,TT Q W ~ P4 Q Q 0.. J Y U W ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ 3z Wa Z U ~ -- ===y--f- J W Q Q 3 w ~ w ~ _ v ~ ~ ~ I LY L7 ^ W Z w --~ Z Q W ~ ~ Z ~ U Q ~ } Q ~ ~ J W~Q -J ~ W W W L G ~ ¢ U U~ Z ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ t .., ~ ~ G~1QQ U U G U P4 ~D \ ~ o ~ < ~ ~ ~ '-' 30>- ~ ~ W W ~v 3 ~ Z Z '-' 3 I ~ W ~~ aQ e> W ~ A ~Q L ~ l7 M 2 a Z W 2 ~- 0 W 0 W J Q Staff Report May 12, 2011 Historic Review for 610 Iowa Avenue District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Teresa Shymansky, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration and demolition project at 610 Iowa Avenue, a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. The project consists of window replacement and demolition of a garage. A~nlicable Regulations and Guidelines: 0 Io zva City historic Preseruxtion Guidelines forfllterations 4.13 Windows 7.0 Ioza~a City histonc I'resera~tion Guidelines forDemolition Stiff Comments This house, built in 1875, is a gable-front house with side cross-gables. There are paired double hung windows centered in the gable at the second-story. The lights are typically one-over-one. The flat porch roof is supported bythree square columns. Garage Demolition The applicant is proposing to demolish the garage on the property. The garage is in poor condition and is a non-contributing/non-historic addition to the neighborhood. The guidelines state that the demolition of outbuildings will be made on acase-by--case basis, with the HPC considering the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the outbuilding. There are some cases where the Commission would want to save anon-contributing or non-historic garage, such as when it provides a buffer along a street frontage or between buildings. In staff's opinion, this is not the case on this property. In Staff's opinion, the condition and location of this garage do not contribute to the character of the neighborhood and the demolition will have minimal impact on the property or the district. Window replacement The applicant is proposing to replace the windows in the house, but has not provided any detail of the replacement windows or documentation of the condition of the existing windows. Upon inspection bystaff, it was difficult to assess the condition of the windows because of the presence of aluminum storm windows. The existing windows are stationary orone-over-one double hung windows. The guidelines recommend preserving windows by repairing sashes and frames, but allow for the replacement of deteriorated windows with new ones that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. The applicant fast must document the extent of deterioration to justify replacement rather than repair of the existing windows. New windows must be either solid wood or metal-clad solid wood. Metal, vinyl-clad, or vinyl windows are not allowed when they are not original to the building. If the applicant provides documentation that existing windows are deteriorated to the extent that replacement is warranted, in Staff's opinion, the historic integrity of the building would be minimally impacted provided the new windows match the appearance of the historic windows. Staff recommends that if the applicant provides justification for replacement, the final window specifications be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure that the windows are compatible with the historic structure and the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Recommended~Llotion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 610 Iowa Avenue as presented in the application with the following conditions: Documentation is provided demonstrating the need to replace rather than repair the existing windows. The replacement windows must match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. The new windows must be either solid wood or metal- cladsolid wood. The new windows specifications must be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. _ ry ~` _...~ ~' ~ ~Ap lication for Historic Re~i P 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.org/HistoricPreservation ~~n~ For Staff Use: Date submitted: ~/~/ ~L' ~~ ^ Certificate of No material Effect ,~' Certificate of Appropriateness ^ Major review ^ Intermediate review ^ 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. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check,primary contact person) ,. ,~ , ^ Property Owner Name: ~-~1=s l-~ ``~,~ ~~yj~ Gl /!~s ~(~f Email ~C. S/1 N ~~> ~~c~cd ~S~1P-t', /~ ~' f ~ ,,~~5y -~ Address: ~~) ~''~ (~/Gi/. YL Ci->1 ~ l~G! ('itv~ ~~ C C~~'1 Phone Number: (~~~ ~15~~ ~~ ~ `/~ ~sL~ -~ State: >~~ Zip Code: `i ~ .-~'~ ^ Contractor /Consultant Name: ~~'~/2.:~~4.-~J' Email: Phone Number: ( ) Address: City: State: Proposed Project Information Address: C~/D _ r ~C,z>t`) ~'J.~= ~~~~c .z>~~ ~ [ j~-C,, Use of Property: ~L~~'-L'1--~'~. = ~ Date Constructed (if known): ~ fit=- Historic Designation (Maps are located inthe Historic Preservation Handbook) ^ This property is a local historic landmark. OR ^ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ^ Brown Street Historic District ^ College Green Historic District ^ East College Street Historic District ^ Longfellow Historic District ^ Northside Historic District ^ Summit Street Historic District ^ Woodlawn Historic District ^ Clark Street Conservation District ^ College Hill Conservation District ^ Dearborn Street Conservation District )~YGovernor-Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ^ Contributing ^ Noncontributing ^ Nonhistoric Zip Code: } 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. ^ A diti (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ^ Building Elevations ^ Floor Plans ^ Photographs ^ Product Information ^ Site Plans ^ 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.) ^ Building Elevations ^ Photographs ^ Product Information ^ Construction of new building ^ Building Elevations ^ Floor Plans ^ Photographs ^ Product Information ^ Site Plans 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.) ^ Photographs ^ Proposal of Future Plans ^ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ^ Photographs ^ Product Information ^ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. ProposedProjectbetails Project Description: ~7C' vy'1 ~ L / s h ~~,Y't~~ e' ,~'/il D =-,~4..e:?~' ~'v` c'e~"}2.. 't%?-~~.., , ^ f~~~ ~rti~ s/~~~ L /~ Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: ~~rde~ti~~ 5~C'cC~S appforhistoricreview-pdf Y ., 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.org/HistoricPreservation jiv ~ rcJ ~DGv S For Staff Use: Date submitted: ~/~/ Z ~ ~~ ^ Certificate of No material Effect ,~ Certificate of Appropriateness ^ Major review ^ Intermediate review ^ 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. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please check primary cantactperson) ~'`~Property Owner Name: rt~`~ ~~,~=~ s~1.-c~~,~~ G~ y9-~`G~ Email: Z S Address: a-~l~ , `- ` City: ~--~~~C~'~ ^ Contractor /Consultant Name: Email: Phone Number: c3,~) ~~~ -a ~~ State:`--~ `~ ' Zip Code: .5 ~ 3~ 3 Address: City: Phone Number: ( ) State: Proposed Project Information Address: (~ /~ ~C~C.,eJ,F? ~L~L - _~~~.bwfl Zip Code: Use of Property: l~I ~ iti t tx.--C Date Constructed (if known) Historic: Designation (Maps are located in the-Historic Preservation Handbook) ^ This property is a local historic landmark. `/ cV" OR ~-"This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ^ Brown Street Historic District ^ College Green Historic District ^ East College Street Historic District ^ Longfellow Historic District ^ Northside Historic District ^ Summit Street Historic District ^ Woodlawn Historic District ^ Clark Street Conservation District ^ College Hill Conservation District ^ Dearborn Street Conservation District ~'' Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ^ Contributing ^ Noncontributing ^ Nonhistoric i 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. ^ i ion (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) O Building Elevations ^ Floor Plans ^ Photographs O Product Information ^ Site Plans Alteration _.._ ___ _. (Typically projects entailing work such as siding an window replacement, kylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. TfTl-ie protect ~s a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ^ Building Elevations ^ Photographs ^ Product Information ^ Construction of new building ^ Building Elevations ^ Floor Plans ^ Photographs ^ Product Information ^ Site Plans ^ 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.) ^ Photographs ^ Proposal of Future Plans ^ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ^ Photographs ^ Product Information ^ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: -- -- r<..l t~~cJ ~ /~J ~ L" ~ S f G 7 r"~L< < ~i~) D ~< `~~11 `7Q t~S-~., :. J Materials to be Used: . t,:~- ~~ Exterior Appearance Changes: appforhistoricreview-pdf Staff Report Historic Review for 4 Bella Vista Place District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing May 12, 2011 The applicant, George Wagner, is requesting approval for several projects at 4 Bella Vista Place, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The projects consist of demolition of existing attached garage, construction of a 240 square foot addition, addition of door and railing onto roof of north wing, and addition of 4 dormers. A~vlic._ able Regulations and Guidelines: ~0 Iowa City flistorzc P~seruztion Guidelnes for~4lterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.10 Porches 4.3 Doors 4.13 Windows 4.7 Mass and Rooflines S. 0 Iowa City historic I'reserration Guidelines forAdditions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Staff Comments 4 Bella Vista Place, constructed in c. 1921, is a 2-story side-gabled Colonial Revival Style house. The end gables have pent roof returns and a small 6-over-6 double-hung window centered beneath the gable. The front facade has the entrance in the right bay surmounted by a shallow pediment, semi-circular transom and side lights. Two pans of 6-over-6 double-hung windows to the left of the door complete the first floor. On the second floor the pair windows are in the outside bays with a smaller window in the center. All windows have shutters which appear to be original. Demolition and Addition The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing attached garage and build an approximately 240 square feet addition in the location of the demolished garage. The new addition would be clad in wood siding to match the house and would have a small porch attached. Windows are proposed, but specifications have not been submitted The guidelines recommend for historic garages to be maintained, but also recommend that the garage demolition be considered on acase-b}~case basis, taking into account the condition and architectural integrity of the garage. As far as additions, the guidelines recommend that new additions be compatible with the architecture of the historic house. In Staff's opinion, the existing garage is not a significant architectural feature of the house and its removal will not adversely affect the historic integrity of the house. Staff also finds that the general design of the addition is compatible with the house, but feels that the window specifications need to be submitted to ensure compatibility with the existing windows on the house. Dorniers The applicant is proposing construction of four dormers, two on the front and two on the rear of the house. Each dormer would have a pair of windows. Again the siding would be wood to match the house and the window specifications have not been submitted. The guidelines recommend that new dormers be of a size, scale, and proportion that are consistent with the architectural style of the house. In Staff's opinion, the dormers are not of a size, scale, and proportion that are consistent with the architectural style of the house. Dormers on Colonial Revival houses are typically much narrower than what is proposed. Colonial Revival dormers generally only contain one window. Staff recommends that on the front facade, the applicant stay true to the Colonial Revival style and build 2 or 3 narrower dormers with one window. In order to add additional head room to the attic, the applicant could consider building a larger shed style dormer on the rear of the property. Deck The applicant is proposing the conversion of the side wing roof into a deck This would include installing a deck railing to the roof and a door from the attic space. The guidelines do not specifically address roof top decks, so the Commission should look to the Secretary of the Interior Standards, which generally say that alterations should be compatible with the building and not create a false sense of history. In Staff's opinion, the proposed roof top deck is compatible with the historic structure and will have minimal impact on the historic integrity of the house. RecommendedsLlotion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 4 Bella Vista Place as presented in the application with the following conditions: ^ The applicant revising the dormers design to include 2 or 3 narrower dormers with one window on the front elevation. The rear dormers could remain two larger dormers or could be redesigned to be a larger shed roofed dormer. The final dormer design must be approved by staff and chair prior to the issuance of a building permit. ^ The windows must match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. The new windows must be either solid wood or metal-clad solid wood. The divided lights must be created with muntin bars adhered to both sides of the glass not with snap in muntin bars. The window specifications must be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Ap~cation for Historic Re~w 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.org/HPhandbook Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the secondThursday of each month. During the summer months the HPC may also meet on the fourthThursday. 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 Staf f' Use: Date submitted ...~.:?~~ .~~ ................................ ^ Certificate of No Material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness ~ Major review ^ Intermediate review ^ Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primaryQco/intact person/) ^ Owner .~~~^~`"~~- Wq~NE~. .............................................................................. Phone ............................................. ................................... ~,, j ) Address .......I.......~.~l.~.q...........~. S~eeq :.................................. rO WA ~.t~~.......~.~1. zip ................... ................... ................. . .......... email ................................................................................................ ^ Contractor ................................................................................ Address .......................................................................................... .................................................................................zip ................... Phone .............................................................................................. email ................................................... c................ N .................. ^ Consultant .....~..~.p.~~...i<'.1......~I.1~~.!~.....~.~.......... Address ~?a~ //M.°~.rC ^^St LL,, .............................l.~.'..w..°.~...4r..! ~.......~I.~1...zip..5.Z2T~ Phone ....................~..~...'....~~.~~:...~.. 0.3.~.~............. ............................................................................... ...................... email ................... M ~tC AI' C1i1; TQ,.C~ ~~-!1.~n.t..Ccsrh ............................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ^ Site plan ^ Floor plans Building elevations Photographs ^ Product information ^ Other .............................................................................. If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently 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......~......~2 ~~A V.l~q ........................ Use of property ........................................................................ Date constructed (if known) ..................................................... Historic Designation ^ This property is a local historic landmark OR This property is located in the: Brown Street Historic District ^ College Green Historic District ^ East College Street Historic District ^ Longfellow Historic District ^ Summit Street Historic District ^ Woodlawn Historic District ^ Clark Street Conservation District ^ College Hill Conservation District ^ Dearborn Street Conservation District ^ Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ^ Contributing ^ Noncontributing ^ Nonhistoric Project Type Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) ^ Construction of new building ^ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance ^ Other .............................................................................................. Project description ............................................................... .................... ...................................................................................................................... ........ .. . . ....... .............................................................................. ........~.....................................-.c~,.,...~a.........~~........r~l ~.Q...,-~:. .................. . ....a.r...c. ~e.a.s ~.al.... ~. ~. s k. ..... ~. ~' -~'i. ~.e. ....................... ~r o.m...... ........ a ...1~.~..,.n a~ ~, n.a(~e.r... ~ ......................... . ~Q~..........l..l ~.{.7~~~K.~~.. J .. {~'~. ~. ~. J.l.t.'1.1.1...7.`...... M..~ ~.I.~.1 n..~.... ..~:~1.... r~..sl .~ .~.~Y..[ ~.1~.Q...~..w ......................................... .......................... ........................................... ~1 ....~l~.d....~~%~ n.........~.... ~ 1.1.... ......................................... a vkn .....~...........~1..r ............ ..... ................. 0~......... D ..............~.`~ .... ........................................................................................................ S~. ........................................................................................................ ::::A::~::::::::1:~~ :::......::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..................................... ..................... ..Adj.. ~...........~o~~......... ~ 2 .............. m~......5.......:.~............ . . .. . . .. .. ...... .... . . ...... .. ........ .. . . ... . .... ... ..... ...... . . ...... . . ...... . . .. ... ...... ........ . ...... . ............................................................................................ .......... ............. .... . ~ rav- .... `..r........................ . ...... . . .. ..... ..... . . ... ....... . . .... .. .... ........ . ... . . ....... ..... ....... . ...... .. ........ .. .. ...... .. .. . . ...... . . .. . . . . . .... . ... . . Materials to be used .. ... ... .. ..... .......... ................................................................................................................ ........................................... .................................... .................... Exterior appearance changes .......... .. ...................................... ........................................................................................................ .. .............................................................. . ... . . .... .......... . ....... ..... ........................................ . ... .. . ............................ . ....... . . ........................ . . ........... . ............ ...... . ........ ..................... ....... . ...... . . .... .......... . . .. .. .... . 4 Addition to 4 Bella Vista, Iowa City -, i Proposed Door from Attic to Walk-out Deck with 36" high Railing -~ Thomas McInerney. Architect Thursday, April 28, 2011 Proposed 36" high .r"~. • Page 1 of 2 Proposed 240 sq ft Single Story Addition with an Open Porch Proposed (2) 10' wide Dormers each for the Front and Rear of Existing Roof -~~-,-__ _..,,~ • Page 2 of 2 Proposed (2) Dormers Demolish Existing 12' x 20' Garage - Proposed 240 sq. ft. Addition with an Thomas McInerney Architect Thursday, April 28, 2011 Existing Building Image below: MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 14, 2011 EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Pam Michaud STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Thomas Hobart, Frannie Malone, Sean Malone, Jean Walker RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. 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: 724 Ronalds Street. Kuecker said this applicationis to install atwelve-foot wide curb cut onto Ronalds Street for a ten-foot wide drive. She said this requires a curb cut permit from the Engineering Department, and that is why the Commission is reviewing this. Kuecker stated that the guidelines disallow curb cuts on a street if there is alley access. She said this property does have alley access, so if the Commission decides to approve this, it needs to grant an exception to the guideline, citing the guideline in the motion and explaining why the exception is being made. Kuecker said the applicant has indicated that the access is needed for handicapped accessibility for the property, and staff sees that as a reasonable circumstance to allow an exception and recommends approval as presented in the application. She said that approval would involve an exception to section 4.12 of the Handbook, with the rationale being the unique situation presented by the handicapped accessibility need for the property. Baldridge asked if there are any other curb cuts on that block of Ronalds Street. Kuecker confirmed that there are several. MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a project for 724 Ronalds Street as presented in the application as an exception to Section 4.12 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook that disallows curb cuts and driveways from Historic Presevation Commission April 14, 2011 Page 2 the street when access is available from an alley. The rationale for the exception is that a unique situation is present in that the applicant cites a necessity for handicapped access to the property and the lot is a double width lot. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (McMahon and Michaud absent). 1205 Seymour Avenue. Kuecker said this is an application for siding replacement. She said the Commission previously approved siding replacement for this property and referred to the certificate that the Commission approved at that time. Kuecker stated that the applicant would like to propose a change in the material to be used for the siding. She said the applicant proposes to use a fairly new product called LP SmartSide. Kuecker said the Commission has not approved it before, so it needs to be looked at carefully to make sure it will hold up as well as wood siding and the other wood substitute the Commission has approved, fiber cement board. Kuecker said that LP SmartSide is a wood composite material that she has been doing research on. She said she has not found a lot of independent resources, so she has consulted some contractors and housing inspectors regarding the product. Kuecker said the housing inspector had seen some houses in the Fairfield area that had this material installed four to five years ago and said it has held up well, except in areas of high moisture, and the inspector did not feel that any material would have held up well in those locations. Kuecker said that contractors noted that the material is easier to work with and install. She said that it comes in longer sheets and is lighter to work with, so it is more economical for homeowners. Kuecker said most of the contractors said they were hesitant to use the material at first, because of its wood composite nature, but after doing research and seeing other applications have felt that it is appropriate and useful. Kuecker stated that locally, the Peninsula has been using LP SmartSide but only for the past year. She said that, in general, the developers have been more satisfied with it than fiber cement board because of ease of use. Kuecker said that because this is a new product, the Commission needs to take time to look at it in-depth and have the Commission be able to review it independently as well. She recommended deferral to the next meeting to allow time for more research. Kuecker showed a photograph of the house as well as houses on the Peninsula that have this product installed. She said it has a very similar appearance to the fiber cement board. Kuecker said that there is both a smooth and textured product. Hobart, one of the owners of the property, said he discussed cedar siding with the Commission a year ago. He said that project did not get completed, and in the meantime, he investigated some possible alternatives. Hobart said there have been some improvements in the material, and he feels confident that it will look good. He said it would be painted. Hobart said he is probably leaning more toward the smooth surface, because what is there now is a redwood, and the new material would look more like it is now. He said he would like to get this project started as soon as possible. Historic Presevation Commission April 14, 2011 Page 3 Ackerson asked what is new about this product. Kuecker replied that previous wood composite siding products have not had a good reputation for holding up over time, especially with moisture. She said that SmartSide is the newest iteration that supposedly solves all the previous problems of this type of siding. Wagner said that he spoke with a salesperson at the lumber store, and the salesperson was quite sold on the SmartSide. Ackerson asked what the binding material is in the product. Wagner said it was probably some kind of polymer. He said the rationale behind allowing fiber cement board is that it looks like wood from the street. Wagner said the rationale would be the same for this product. He said that if it fails, in the end it would be the homeowner's problem. Wagner said he likes the idea of a test. Hobart said that one of the challenges he has is the archways. He said that his contractor, Clark Griffin, feels they will be somewhat easier to do with the SmartSide than with the cement board. Wagner said that professionally, he feels this will be as good as or better than fiber cement board, although he is pleased with the durability of the fiber cement board. He said that the fiber cement board pieces are heavy and sometimes are difficult to cut. Wagner recommending trying the smooth finish SmartSide and have it be a test. He said that it will look like wood, and the only person who stands to lose is the homeowner. Hobart said he thought the product had been on the market for a few years. Griffin said the company has been testing the product for ten years or more, but he was unaware of how long the product has been installed on houses. Baker asked what other historic preservation commissions have said about this product. Kuecker answered that she was unable to find that information. She added that when the Peninsula proposed this, the staff person working on that project tested a piece of the material with soaking and other tests, and it seemed to hold up like fiber cement board. Swaim said that if the Commission considers this a test case, it will still get requests for this material this year or next. Ackerson said that the Commission may not know for 20 years what the durability of the product is and that three years is not really a sufficient test for siding. Trimble said that she didn't know if a test case is a good idea, if the Commission approves one project and then has to turn down others it wouldn't be consistent. Swaim added that if the material is easier to work with, there will be a flood of requests for it. Kuecker said that siding replacement is not a common request for the Commission to review. She said that there are probably a couple of projects per year, at most, and the owner usually has to give good reasons for needing the replacement in the first place. Baker agreed that failure of the product would hurt the homeowner but not the Commission. Baldridge asked what the Commission would find out in a month's time that is does not know now. Kuecker suggested that the Commission members could do their own research and testing, although they have quite a bit of information available already. Downing said that one of the principle objections to a lot of siding is that it is not paintable. He said the paintability of this product is a point in its favor. Downing said that one of the biggest factors in the success of the outcome of this project is in the details. He said there needs to be advanced discussion regarding the duplication of the details of the house. Historic Presevation Commission April 14, 2011 Page 4 Swaim agreed that the homeowner is taking the risk here. She said that in the spirit of what the Commission does, it would not want to approve something that would damage the house if moisture got into it. Hobart hopes to have less moisture after the project, as that has been a problem with the house before in that moisture from the inside pops the paint. Swaim asked about the availability of the different profiles. Hobart responded that he would like to duplicate, as much as possible, the siding that is there now. Wagner said he doubted that was the original profile. Hobart said the house originally had painted, cedar shake siding. He agreed that it would not be the original profile. MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1204 Seymour Avenue as submitted, as an acceptable wood substitute exception to the guidelines. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Michaud absentl. DISCUSSION OF IRVING WEBER HOUSE, 421 MELROSE COURT: Kuecker stated that a neighborhood representative requested that the Commission consider nominating the Weber house as a local landmark. She said the property owners were present at the meeting to discuss this. Kuecker said this property does meet the requirements of a local landmark. Regarding the process, Kuecker said the Commission would need to decide whether to move forward on this or not. She said that if the decision is to move forward, an application for rezoning would be submitted for this property. Kuecker stated that would then come back for a formal public hearing before the Commission, for which notices would be published, and neighbors would be notified. She said that then this would go to a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and from there to a public hearing in front of the City Council, where it would require three votes. Kuecker said the Commission should discuss the pros and cons of this and get the opinion of the property owners. She recommended that, if the property owners are not in favor of this, that the Commission not pursue it at this time. Kuecker said the owners are in the process of selling the house, so that the next property owners may be the ones to approach. Sean Malone, one of the owners of the house, said that he and his wife put their house on the market last month. He said they have a relationship with the Webers and the Weber Trust. Sean Malone said that he unexpectedly received a letter from Kuecker and the City stating that the property has been nominated to be designated an Iowa City landmark. He said he appreciates the history of Mr. Weber and everything he has done for the community. Sean Malone said, however, that they have been in negotiations with people and have made disclosures stating that there are no rezoning issues with the process. He said this was the first notice that they had, and it really puts them in a bind. Sean Malone said that today's article in the Iowa City Press-Citizen regarding the potential designation as an historic landmark really frightens away a lot of buyers and puts he and his wife in a bad position. Sean Malone said that he appreciates the legacy of the Webers in Iowa City. He said, however, that he didn't realize this was happening; now they have an offer on the table but don't know what to tell the buyer, because they have to be honest with him about what is going on. Historic Presevation Commission April 14, 2011 Page 5 Sean Malone said he thinks this occurred as a result of a lack of communication at the neighborhood level. He said that if he would have been asked about this two years ago, they would have done it in a heartbeat. Frannie Malone agreed that she and her husband want to protect the home, but she also feels like it should be the decision of the next owner. She said that they plan to move in the next month or so. Sean Malone stated that this has really caught them off guard and said he felt like this was done the wrong way. Ackerson asked if this house would come under the guidelines, where nothing else in the neighborhood does. Kuecker confirmed this. Kuecker said that she talked to the realtor of the person who has the offer on the house, and that person is not necessarily scared away by the nomination but would prefer to make that decision. Sean Malone said he really does not want to see this house carved up to be a rental property. Walker said she is the representative for the Melrose Neighborhood Association. She agreed that this was not the best way to have this happen. Walker said the history regarding the Melrose Neighborhood Association is that it has been absolutely snowed with a variety of projects. She said that this has been in the back of their minds since Irving Weber died, and they had hoped that they could contact Willard Weber, Irving's son, but then Willard Weber died before that was done, and then the house turned over. Walker said there is a 13-member executive committee for the Melrose Neighborhood Association, and it has been dealing with a lot of things recently. She said that she had mentioned at a previous Historic Preservation Commission meeting that the Weber house needed some protection. Walker said that time passed, and then she e-mailed Kuecker on March 14th regarding this property. Walker said that Kuecker was busy but she heard back from her on March 24th describing the process. Walker said Kuecker suggested that, if Walker knew the owners, that she go over and talk to them, but Walker said she did not know them, and then she got busy with other things. Walker apologized to the Malones for them not receiving sufficient notice. Trimble agreed that this discussion did come up at a previous Commission meeting. Sean Malone asked why it was not addressed earlier, if there was such a concern about the home. He said this should not be his burden to carry. Sean Malone said that this front-page article in today's Press-Citizen is jeopardizing their ability to sell their house to someone who made them an offer just yesterday. Walker said she would like to address that. She said that she has been the representative for the neighborhood since 2000 and has worked on various neighborhood issues since 1973. Walker said she is exhausted. She said that issues have come up about the neighborhood, and she tries to focus on the major things and also goes around trying to put out fires when other things come up. Walker stated that she couldn't do any more than she has. Sean Malone said he appreciates everything she has done for the neighborhood, and everything that she has done to protect it from University Hospital encroachment. Sean Malone said that he just felt that the timing of this seems funny. Walker said that seeing the sign go up Historic Presevation Commission April 14, 2011 Page 6 scared her, because she felt that the house would then be another generation of owners removed from the Webers, and she wondered if it would ever be saved. She said the house then went to the top of her list of items to do something about. Walker apologized, saying she tries to make connections with people, but this just happened. Kuecker said that anyone can petition to have a house designated as a local landmark. Sean Malone said that anon-owner could ask for this, and it could make its way to the City Council and be passed with six out of seven votes, even if the property owners were against it. Kuecker replied that the only time that has ever happened for a landmark building was when the Carnegie Library was threatened to be taken down. Kuecker said the Commission does not need to be a vote; the item was on the agenda for discussion and to find out if there is a consensus of the Commission to move forward. Kuecker said that if there is not a consensus to move forward, then this item leaves the table. Walker said she understands the concerns of the Malones and said she would have the same concerns if this happened to her. She said she is very grateful that the Malones have not changed anything on the house so that it is still in the same shape. Walker said she had hoped that this would be a win-win situation, where the restrictions put on the house by having a landmark designation would not be onerous and would be acceptable to the new owner. She said she understands about the owners not wanting it to be their decision, but she wondered if there might be some sort of halfway measure where one could talk to the prospective buyer to say that the City is not proceeding with designation. Walker said perhaps the City could tell the prospective buyers that designation would be up to them, but the restrictions are not as bad as people have implied. Walker said the house is in an historic neighborhood. She said that when the historic district was put on the National Register of Historic Places, Marlys Svendsen, who did the research, said that this house needed to have a landmark designation to preserve it. Walker said that the house will be 100 years old in 18 years. She said that the house is wonderful; it has not been changed. Walker said there are other landmark houses in the neighborhood. She said it is a way, as has been outlined, to prevent the house from being demolished. Walker said that a house like that could be demolished, because 402 Myrtle in the same neighborhood was just demolished after it was allowed to deteriorate. Walker said she just wanted to remind the Commission of a few of the things about Irving Weber. She said he worked for Sidwell Dairy and developed tfie quality check dairy products association. Walker said that apart from his career, because he was so revered, in 1989 the City Council named Weber Iowa City's official historian. Swaim stated that this reminds us of the nature of historic preservation work, in that a lot of it is done by very busy volunteers. She added that she does not feel the current owners should be put in this position and that it should be up to the next owner. Wagner said that if he owned such a house and planned to sell it ten years down the road, he might seek out such a designation, because it would add value. He said that the designation does not help the owner's situation in a housing market like this with such short notice. Wagner Historic Presevation Commission April 14, 2011 Page 7 suggested the Commission made a concerted effort to let the new owner(s) know about this information. Sean Malone said it would be a great thing to give the new owners contact information for Walker so that they can get information from her, as she is a valuable resource for the neighborhood and the City. He said that they are trying to sell the house to someone who will take care of it. Sean Malone said the next person should decide if he wants to go forward with this process, but it is too late for them. The consensus of the Commission was to not proceed with landmark designation. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 10 2011: MOTION: Swaim moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's March 10, 2011 meeting, as written. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Michaud and Baldridae absentl. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MOTION: Swaim moved to nominate Trimble for Chair of the Commission and McMahon as Vice Chair of the Commission for the next year. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Michaud and Baldridae absent). OTHER: Burford discussed the Parade of Historic Homes and asked for volunteers to help. She said that this year it is all part of Irving Weber Days. Burford said that Jeff Schabillion will be lecturing on Saturday, May 14th, on Iowa City's stone buildings and Mr. Moffitt. Burford said that on Sunday, the 15th, Plum Grove, which was the first preservation project in Iowa and one of the first in the Midwest, will be highlighted. She said there will also be seven to eight Moffitt homes open in that same area. Burford said it is a very social event. She asked anyone interested in helping to a-mail her or Trimble. Swaim said the newspaper coverage of the past week reminded her of how much work was done by the Commission after the tornado occurred. She also discussed a student of hers who is doing a project involving the Goosetown area. Trimble said the Commission would be interested in seeing that information and keeping the interest going. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O N O v z O H Q W N W a U 0 ~_ O O v W W ~ Uo Z N Q O Z W H a X X X X X X ~ X X X X 0 X X X X X X X X X M ~ ~ 0 x X X w X X w w w X x j O O O O M X X ~ X X ~ X X ~ X ~ r a X M ~' N M d' d' N N ~ M N ~ ~ rn N rn N rn N rn N ~ rn N ~ rn N ~ rn N ~ rn N ~ rn N ~ rn N ~ rn N W M M M M M M M M M M M H Q W ~ Z Y z N W Y Q = w p ~ ~ m W ~ W ~ Y m J ~ Z ~ ~ ~ °z Q Z ~ J Q Q ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ a O ~ V ~ J z C7 Q N Q ~ Z Q p H V a w J ~ ~ Z ~ W Q E 0 vd ~ o ~z ~ U p~ ~ C y ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~~ a~QZ°o a Q n n z u u w ~ XOOz w Y