Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-2012 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, January 12, 2012 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J Harvat Hall 5:15 P.M. A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 437 S. Governor Street (window replacement for egress) 2. 515 Van Buren Street (new window well for basement egress window) 3. 610 E. Jefferson Street (new railing at front porch) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff F) Consideration of Minutes for December 8, 2011 G) Adjournment Staff Report January 6, 2012 Historic Review for 437 S. Governor Street District: Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, the City of Iowa City, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 427 S. Governor Street, a contributing property in the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. The project consists of the replacement of two upstairs windows to provide new egress windows. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.13 Windows Staff Comments The construction date for this house is c.1900. The best description is `Folk Victorian.' This is a gable- front- and -wing form, two story house, with very modest ornamentation. It is frame construction, with clapboard siding, stucco covered foundation, and asphalt shingle roofing. The front porch has likely been modified at some time, and would have originally extended the full width of the side wing. Governor Street was one the earliest streets to be developed in the Longfellow area. Houses were built as early as the mid -19th century, and development continued well into the 20th century. While some of the houses seem to relate to those found on Summit Street, the park -like setting is notably absent here, owing to intensive subdivision in the early and mid -20th century. Not only is there no common setback, but houses are also spaced unevenly. This is a street with a broad range of styles and periods, and varied levels of integrity. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing second floor window on the south side of the house, and another on the rear of the house (west side), and replace these windows with new casement type egress windows. This house is part of the UniverCity rehab program and egress windows are required by code in rooms that are being converted to bedrooms. The proposed windows are Crestline Select, aluminum clad wood windows, with a center bar that mimics the appearance of the original double hung windows. The proposed work would not change the existing size of the window opening, and would not alter the exterior trim. The guidelines recommend that required egress windows match the size, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the other windows in the house. The use of metal -clad, solid wood windows is acceptable; replacement windows must accept paint; and a dark finish color is recommended for non -wood windows. Also note that Crestline is not included in the list of approved windows for Minor Review. In Staffs opinion, fitting the egress windows into the existing openings without changing the exterior trim is good. Whether or not the Crestline window is acceptable cannot be determined without more information. Product information for the new windows should be submitted and reviewed for compliance with the guidelines. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the window replacement at 427 S. Governor Street, as presented in the application, with the following condition: ■ Product information and dimensions for the replacement windows must be reviewed and approved by Chair and staff. --tq � - . ., I - I- - . �14 - - i u I �J Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. 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: i ;�, / ;k A / I I ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ 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. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner /Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) d Property Owner Name: C ; Li of �.o w c,- L- hi Email: Address: City: 10 t ;Ck ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: Email: Phone Number: (3 19 ) 3S C, - S 2-2, State: 1A Zip Code: 4'D22 q D Phone Number: ( 311) 15 I - % N Z 3 Address: ) �> ,Z C e,'-, 4-6rn i ,�, A J -1 City: 0 w a Lt'-1- j State: 1A Zip Code: SZZ `I G Proposed Project Information Address: -e r 0 c r S tr e e t Use of Property: 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 ❑ 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 Er Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: dContributing 11 Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric (cation Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (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.) Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: ppdadmin/ histpres /app_for_historicreview.doc 6/11 ❑ 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: S /4T7g -c- 9--- D r� Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: ppdadmin/ histpres /app_for_historicreview.doc 6/11 1kITY OF ►OAA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: December 19, 2011 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: David J Powers, Housing Rehabilitation Specialist Re: UniverCity project at 437 S Governor The home at 437 S Governor is being rehabbed as part of the City's UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program. It was previously a duplex that is being reworked back into a single family, owner occupied home. As part of this project, the second floor kitchen and living room are being converted back to bedrooms with the removal of the kitchen cabinets in the rear room and the addition of a closet in the front room. This change in use mandates that we bring both rooms up to current housing code. In order to accomplish this, we are being required to install egress windows in both rooms. In order to do this with the least impact on the exterior of the home, we have determined that the installation of casement windows that mimic the appearance of the original double hungs would be the best solution. The windows will be aluminum clad wood windows with a center bar and would maintain the original size and exterior trim. Staff Report January 6, 2012 Historic Review for 515 Van Buren Street District: Northside Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Prestige Properties, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 515 Van Buren Street, a contributing property in the Northside Historic District. The project consists of a basement window well. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.5 Foundations 4.13 Windows Staff Comments This is a simply styled 1'/2 story vernacular house from the early 20th century. It has a front - gabled roof, with asphalt shingles, replacement siding, replacement storm windows, and textured concrete block foundation. The cornice returns on the front gable reference a classic temple form. Houses like this, either plain or with ornamental details, were available from ready -cut house catalogues such as those by Gordon Van Tine Co., Sears, Roebuck and Co., and the Alladin Co., as well as from local builders. The applicant is proposing the installation of a basement window well on the south side of the house, at the location of the existing west -most basement window. The purpose of the window well is to accommodate a future egress window. The proposed window well is a product manufactured by Wellcraft, and would include integral steps or ladder and a cover. All material in the Wellcraft system is polycarbonate. The overall size and height above grade for this proposed window well is not clear from the application, and information on the future egress window has not been provided. The guidelines state that if new window wells are required, the materials used must appear similar to the existing foundation material. In this case, the existing foundation material is a historic textured concrete block. It is further recommended that egress windows, when required by the Building Code, match the size, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the other windows in the house. In Staff's opinion, to be compliant with the guidelines, the window well should be poured concrete or concrete masonry construction. Information on the overall size, height above grade, and style of cover should be provided for review and approval. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 515 Van Buren Street, as presented in the application, with the following conditions: • Window well to be poured concrete or concrete masonry construction, with the portion exposed above grade to match the appearance of the foundation of the house. • Overall size, height above grade, and style of cover to be reviewed and approved by Chair and staff. -ILA_ WHO � 1 �t i C == -- -- .. _ -- ._. _ __` ,. - .. '-Ik` - _ 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 For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ 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. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. ❑ Property Owner Name: Email: Property Owner /Applicant Information (Please chAk primary gontact person) n Phone Number: ( Address: 32°L C, C�„�r -+– S City: JowA, C-1w State: TA Zip Code: 5 ZZ 40 ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: 50.L Email: Phone Number: (31.9 X31 —QZ32_ Address: City: State: Proposed Project Information Zip Code: Address: 515 VAh J `emu 0— EJ -to z L1,4 C y �ir4 Use of Property: Date Constructed (if known): 1 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: ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District 0 Contributing ❑ Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric O � 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. ❑ Addition (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 li ) 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. Project Description: PAd eIK-ss Proposed Project Details W i VJ0 c.3 w QJl ' 0 6'14 Materials to be Used: walIp_VMA 10 mss w % I'S v1AJ $ g Exterior Appearance Changes: J L,��"— '0 0-aVLOL Ppdadmin/ hispres /appforhistoricreview.doc July 12, 2011 We I I c raft" egress systems 888 - 812 -9545 www.weIIcraftwelIs.com TheTjp C } GR UP Copyright 02007 Headwaters. All rights reserved. Item #088000002 W7169-CT 11107 Wellcraftm egress systems www.wellcraftwells.com Mount 3 Backfill 'If the well is installed on an existing window, you must use a dome style cover, fence, or other enclosure to ensure safety around the well. For detailed instructions specific to each model, see installation instructions included with each well or visit www.wellcraftwells.com. Staff Report January 6, 2012 Historic Review for 610 E. Jefferson Street District: NA Classification: Local Landmark The applicant, Prestige Properties, is requesting approval for an alteration project at 610 E. Jefferson Street, an Iowa City Local Landmark. The project consists of new railings at the front porch. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails Staff Comments This house has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 1995. It qualified under Criterion C for its architectural significance. The original construction date is c.1850 -1865. The National Register nomination states that it was built in 1854, with an1856 two -story rear addition that doubled the size of the house. A more recent Site Inventory Form states that the house was built in 1865. Both descriptions agree that the house was originally built adjacent to St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church at Linn and Jefferson Streets, and that it was moved to its present location in 1891. The historic name for this house is St. Mary's Rectory, but for the majority of its 150 -year history it has been a private residence unaffiliated with the church. This example of the Side - Gabled Two Story or I -house form has closed gable ends and a flat roof porch extending across nearly the full front. The porch may date form 1891 when the house was moved. The turned posts are original; the roof balustrade, spindled frieze (replacing a solid frieze board), and porch balustrade are all modern replacements fabricated from standard dimension lumber. The porch skirting panels, also modern replacements, are made of diagonal lattice set between brick piers. The symmetrical front facade has a flat arched multi -light transom above the entrance door with narrow multi -pane sidelights, all original. The 15- light entrance door was installed in the 1970s and replaced a six -panel wood door. The second floor door above the main entrance is also a modern replacement, although the opening is likely original to the porch. The house is set on a stone foundation and is clad in clapboard siding with corner board trim. The siding on the front of the house has been identified as original. The property owner is applying for historic review and approval of the recently replaced front porch railing. This railing has been constructed with treated wood, which the owner proposes to paint. The Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook includes specific guidelines, with illustrations, for recommended treatment of balustrades and handrails on historic buildings. Applicable recommendations include the following: • Constructing the balustrade in a style that is consistent with the architectural style of the building. • For balustrades with square spindles, installing spindles that are 1 -1/2 inches or greater in width. • Installing top and foot rails that are at least 2 inches in thickness. • Providing a slight slope on the top and foot rails, allowing water to shed from these surfaces, and helping to prevent deterioration of these members. • Spacing spindles so that the balustrade is at least 40% solid. Spindles must be spaced so that no gap between the spindles exceeds 4 inches as required by the building code. • Providing balustrades as required by the building code. Height of balustrade must comply with code requirements based on floor height above grade. ■ Providing handrails at steps as required by the building code. The handrail must have a continuous member that can be easily gripped. The handrail should either match the balustrade or be made of round steel pipe. ■ Treated wood must be painted or stained. In Staff's opinion the proposed work does not meet guideline recommendations for an appropriate balustrade and is therefore not acceptable. Most significantly, the design of the porch balustrade and stair handrails is not consistent with the historic architectural style of this building. As an alternative, short of historic research, new railings that match the existing railings on the sides of this porch would be acceptable. Recommended Motion Move to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 610 E. Jefferson Street, as presented in the application. Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness on condition that new railings match the existing railings on the sides of this porch. Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs State Historical Society of Iowa I wa Site Inventory Form (,ontinuation Sheet Pape ' I r' E Jefferson St Johnson Address County in Iowa Photograph Site Number 52- 03,35 q f6�'v +4--e n I 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 tea] For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ 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. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner /Applicant Information 1% r (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: Email: Address: 3 2,1 e- Co,,_v-L city: TOul A ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: Email: Address: City: Address: _ (OH C Use of Property: Phone Number: ( ) State: MA Zip Code: S2Z4O Phone Number: (,311) 331- OZ z - State: Proposed Project Information 4M Zip Code: Date Constructed (if known): Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) qThis property is a local historic landmark. 14111 ❑ 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: 11 Contributing ❑ Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric i a 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. ❑ Addition (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 A t r tion (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. Project Description: f&-VtC-Le Materials to be Used: Proposed Project Details \ t n,5 Exterior Appearance Changes: M \ VSO i(' C�� Q t kz V-a �K 1, Ppdadmin / hispres /appforhistoricreview.doc July 12, 2011 Date: January 6, 2012 1 G »va Cite Historic. Preservation Commission MEMORANDUM To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Cheryl Peterson, Preservation Consultant 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 December report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review 1225 Muscatine Avenue — replace sliding patio door Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review None Minor Review — Pre - approved items — Staff review None MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 2011 EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: William Downing, David McMahon, Alicia Trimble STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Joyce Carroll, Marlin Ingalls, John Roffman, Matt Roffman RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA; There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 915 E. Washington Street Peterson stated that this is the same property for which the foundation was approved last month. She said the property is in the 900 block of Washington Street in the College Hill Conservation District. Peterson showed a view of the site. Peterson said the site plan is pretty much the same as a month ago. She said the only added things are a sidewalk from the front porch to the public sidewalk, a ramp or sidewalk to the parking in the back, and some indication of landscaping. Peterson said the setback is 15 feet from the sidewalk Peterson showed the basement plan, which is slightly changed from a month ago. She said the rear stairway has been changed to simplify the building footprint. Peterson said the new basement plan shows windows on the east and west sides, with window wells. Peterson said the floor plans have not changed much from November, with the rear stairs being one of the biggest changes. She showed the main floor and the upper floor plans. Peterson said the roof plan has been revised. She said it is a gable end roof with hip -type roofs over the porches. She said the design is in the Queen Anne style. Peterson said the materials would be the fiber cement board clapboard siding. She said there is product information in the packet for the ornamental shingles for siding at the gable end. Peterson said the applicant's drawings appear to show asphalt shingles but on wall surfaces it would really be the Hardie product, with the scallops, as shown on the last sheet of the handout. Peterson said the windows would be a vinyl window. She said she does not have information on the front door, the columns, or the material for the railing and skirting at the porch. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 2 Peterson showed the west side of the duplex. She said the window shown at the basement level would be mostly concealed. Peterson showed the line representing the finished grade. Peterson showed the back elevation. She said the grade is almost up to the top of the foundation at that point. Baldridge asked if there are then two entrances from the rear and one from the front. Peterson confirmed this. Michaud asked if the two lower windows are casements for egress, and if they would appear to be double hung, or if they are really double hung. Peterson said she did not know. Michaud said that one of them has to be an egress window, so she thought maybe both of them were casements with the appearance of double hung windows. Peterson said the packet refers to the Gerkin brand of windows. She said she has not determined if the windows meet all of the guidelines, as she has been getting drawings up to the last minute. Peterson said, referring to the guidelines, that in many ways the proposed project is in compliance. She said there are also still some details that staff feels are not worked out. Peterson said she is still receiving drawings, and that is why she is recommending this be deferred, or that it be approved with the condition that the chair and staff would continue to work with the applicant. Ackerson asked what the nature is of the discrepancies at this point. Peterson responded that there is a gable front, and she believes there would be about a twelve -inch overhang. She said one of her concerns is how the soffit is actually constructed in this location. Peterson said she also does not have information on the products for the columns or the railings. She said there are problems with the dimensions and detailing of trim boards around the windows. Peterson said the window trim is all a vinyl product, and she was uncertain whether that was acceptable. Wagner said it is acceptable to use fiber cement siding, but not vinyl siding, in this district. Miklo said this is a conservation district. Wagner said that if vinyl windows are acceptable, then vinyl siding would be acceptable by the same logic. Peterson read from the guidelines that wood and wood substitutes must be durable, accept paint, and retain the appearance and function of wood. Miklo said that based on previous cases that would mean cement board. Michaud said the Commission has come across a lot of vinyl that has failed. She said that a conservation district might be different for replacing windows, but this is new construction, so it would need to have very long -term durability. Michaud asked Peterson if she is saying the trim doesn't look right at the windows on the first floor level. Peterson said she was not sure about the proportions of the trim. Peterson said she has seen Queen Anne properties in the neighborhoods here where there is a continuous horizontal trim board and that it is also the window head. She said the trim board between the two floors of this project looks too wide. Michaud said that on the Victorians she has seen, she just doesn't remember seeing horizontal, lap siding between the two windows, and that is what doesn't look right about it to her. She stated that the connecting sill and the header are correct; it just looks strange to have that horizontal, lap siding between the two windows. Peterson said they could also just have their own sills and head trim. Peterson said the drawings look good with the trim lined up with the rear porch, and she wondered if it could line up at the front porch. She said there should be the same height of columns, front and back. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 3 Peterson asked the applicant if he had anything to add. John Roffman said he is the applicant. He stated that, regarding the front porch, he had looked at lining up the trim bands, but the second floor windows right now are only 42 inches tall and he would lose about a foot and one -half of window height if the trim bands lined up. John Roffman said the porch roof is shown at about a 4:12 pitch, which is about the minimum for a shingled roof. This minimum roof pitch allows him to maximize the window height above this roof. He said that lining up trim bands just doesn't work out. Peterson asked about the entablature that was added at the columns and how deep it would be. John Roffman said it is 12 inches. Michaud asked about the triple window on the left side and why the roof goes up higher. John Roffman said there is an offset in the porch. He said the porch is deeper on the east (left) side than it is on the other side. Michaud said that rather than flattening out, which would create a problem, this is going straight back. John Roffman confirmed this. Peterson said that if this is a flatter pitch, one would have to go to membrane roofing. Miklo said 12 inches seems too deep. He said another possibility would be to have it eight inches, and that would make up some of the difference. Ackerson said there are houses on both sides, and this new duplex will be on top of a rise from the street. He said he is not sure how many would even see that elevation, certainly not from that perspective. Miklo said the neighbors would see it from their windows. Michaud said she has just never seen this continuing pitch on a Victorian. Peterson said the houses on either side don't have the same detailing, so there isn't a clue there. Regarding the front elevation, Peterson said that typically older houses would have a window or a vent in the peak of the gable. She said that is something that might be appropriate here. John Roffman said that would be in the rafter space. Peterson said it would more likely be a vent. Michaud said that has been done before. Swaim stated that it would distinguish more between the two planes. Peterson pointed out that there are columns shown, but the column locations are not consistent at each of the porches. She said it needs to be considered whether full columns should be placed where the porch meets the building. Peterson said that historically it would have been an engaged half column, or a pilaster. Swaim said one issue is whether the Commission should defer this to get more specific details, vote on it as is, or leave it up to staff and the chair to work with the applicant to refine this. Miklo said if Commission members are generally comfortable with the direction this is going and the general concept, the Commission might want to turn it over to Peterson and the chair to decide. Miklo said if the Commission feels there are a lot of questions and is not quite happy with this, it could be deferred. Swaim asked if the fact that the foundation has changed slightly with the windows and the stairs would need any separate action. Miklo said it would not. Peterson said Karen Howard had advised that Housing and Inspection Services would look at this. Baldridge asked if it is finished space in the basement. John Roffman replied that it is not. Regarding the basement windows, he said they have to have a window for secondary egress. Michaud said that two would not be required, and John Roffman agreed but said he wanted more light for the basement. Peterson said last month the Commission said it would approve the basement if the applicant worked out the rear stairs, which has been done. She said the other change is the windows. John Roffman said that Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 4 the window area actually was not shown well in the original drawing. He added that the foundation plan did not get any larger, and the change at the rear stair did not change the location of the back wall. Michaud said she was not clear about the difference between the narrower front windows and the wider side windows, and asked if they are separated by a wall. John Roffman said, no, they are in a bedroom, and if they need to be brought together, they could be brought together. John Roffman said they have to provide egress windows for the bedrooms. Regarding how the trim is finished off at the eave return on the gable ends, John Roffman said that if one looks at the Hardie brochure, the image in the upper left corner is how it would be. He called it a pigeon roost. Michaud asked John Roffman if he would be avoiding the pigeon roost or leaving it in. John Roffman replied that he would like to avoid it, but that is what it will be. Peterson said this is a traditional design, used in several styles. She stated that it is a classical way to resolve that overhang. Ackerson said he thinks it is very attractive. He said he is afraid that sometime down the road, however, someone will need to do something to keep critters off of this. Peterson said the roof has enclosed soffits, and on the gable end the roof is projecting a foot from the face of the gable. She said that if one has this condition, then one has to trim it, terminate it, somehow. Miklo stated that it is a pretty common feature, even in new construction, so he is not too concerned about problems with animals getting up there. He said that if it is not going to be designed this way, then the Commission needs to know what the alternative is, and either way the drawings need to be clear and understandable so we are sure it is buildable. Swaim said there are a fair number of details that are not worked out yet on this in terms of the Commission voting. Miklo said the two choices are to either defer this or approve it subject to Peterson and Trimble working out the details. Peterson pointed out that her report suggested deferral, but that was based on much different drawings. She said the new drawings are much closer to what the guidelines suggest so this is certainly a design the Commission could approve, with conditions. MOTION: Litton moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 915 E. Washington Street, pending final approval by staff and the chair. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 (Downing, McMahon, and Trimble absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY STAFF AND CHAIR: Peterson stated that this information is available in the packet and asked if anyone had additional comments. DISCUSS CITY PARK LOG CABINS: Carroll, Program Supervisor of the Parks and Recreation Department, introduced herself. She said she has worked for Parks and Recreation for over 30 years and is in charge of the art program and most of the children's social activities. Carroll said that her history with the log cabins goes way back to when she was a student at The University. Carroll said that about a year and one -half ago, the County Historic Preservation Commission had a new education coordinator that she wanted to meet with, because there are some cooperative activities between the City and County. Carroll said that she and Meghan chose to meet at the cabins and right away realized there was no way to do any programming at the cabins any more. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 5 Carroll said she talked to her supervisor, and they have been moving forward since. She said they have had some help from the Planning Department, including Christina Kuecker and Lauren Ditzler, who helped put together the material provided to the Commission, including an application to the State for a TAN visit, which they were given. Carroll introduced Marlin Ingalls, who is with the Office of the State Archaeologist and has done a lot of research on the log cabins, and she said he knows a lot more about their physical history than she could ever know. Ingalls said that this has turned into one of his pet projects for two reasons. He said that this is quite an exceptional resource, and when one looks at the information and the long history and the tie -in of the rural settlers and historic life, the construction, the location and relocation, and the replication of trading posts, all of these elements really produced exceptional handmade structures. Ingalls said that one of the difficulties is that they are handmade buildings, and they are complicated. He said there is no stud wall framing in these buildings and no plaster; what you see is what you get, and that is what historic housing in Johnson County consisted of. Ingalls said he has participated in the evaluation and restoration of about ten other log cabins at this point. He said the last one he was involved in was a nearly 8,000- square foot log building at the Anamosa Golf Club. Ingalls said it was all log and was built by prisoners from the Anamosa Prison and followed the 1917 National Park Service guidelines. Ingalls said the City Park cabin is a single -pin cabin, and the other one is a double -pin cabin with a dog trot. He said these are replicating original cabins built in Johnson County and were built by Johnson County pioneers. Ingalls referred to photographs showing both the qualities and deficits of the log cabins. He said that log cabins invariably bend and sink and invariably need a certain level of maintenance. Ingalls said the deferred maintenance on these structures is one of the biggest killers of them. He said that since they are made primarily out of old growth timber, they have survived surprisingly well, and they are not as bad as they look. Ingalls said the cabins are imminently restorable. He said that it will take some focus and planning to proceed on this. Ingalls said the current plan is to do them both at the same time. He said it will save a lot of time and effort. Ingalls showed a photograph of the single pin cabin. He said it is a replica, although it fooled him, as it is a 1880s cabin rather than a 1840s cabin. Ingalls said the hewing, the notching, and the corner notching are really exceptional. Ingalls said that one of the problems with these log cabins is the dense tree canopy. The leaves drop and collect on the roof; wet leaves and deep shade accelerate deterioration of the wood shingles. Ingalls said that roof repair is a big priority, and that he would like to get 75 years out of these cabins after they are restored. Ingalls said they are pretty much untouched, which is good for their accurate restoration. Ingalls showed a photograph of the southwestern corner of the single pin cabin. He said it is a good example of the elements that had to be reconstructed when it was moved. Ingalls stated that what he sees on the bottom are reconstructed logs and reinserted logs. Above this, other logs have been re- fitted into the corners in order to stabilize the cabin. Ingalls also noted the broad ax and felling ax marks on the hewn beams. Ingalls said one of the other problems is the chinking. He said that chinking can act like a water /moisture sponges. Ingalls showed on the lower right foundation level log, both wet rot and dry rot, which are kind of pervasive through the whole cabins. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 6 Ingalls said these cabins are surprisingly sturdy, because of the density and the size of the logs that are in them. He said that one can lose an inch on the surface of them, and it doesn't really make much difference. Ingalls said he has even encountered several of these cabins that caught on fire, charred, and then had the charring scraped off and the surfaces redone, and they were just as solid as when they were put up. He stated that they are very durable buildings, if they are maintained well. Ingalls showed a slide of the cabin to demonstrate its horizontal look and its integrity, and dry rot and wet rot. He said that one of the factors in these cabins is that they really have integrity — integrity of material and integrity of their segregated location. Ingalls said they are over the 50 -year guideline for the National Register in this location, after previous relocations. He said that there is a little bit of a hodgepodge of things, but for the most part they have very high integrity. Ingalls said the exteriors are problematic in a few places. He said that he has dealt with several of these cabins where this porous - looking material has been restored using various infusion methods and reconstituting agents that keeps the original look intact. Ingalls said these are fairly common methods in restoration and are safe for the environment and for people. Ingalls showed a photograph of logs that will have to be replaced. He said the only real difficulty is where to get the logs, and in previous cabins, the DNR has been welcoming in providing the logs. Ingalls said they can either be hewn into shape or sawed into shape. He said that one would be using the original historic fabric of the building, and even the logs in the photograph can be restored to their original condition, although time and money may be prohibitive for that. Ingalls added that if the foundation is no good, it does not matter what is put on top of it. He said that since the foundations here are failing but are not failed, they can all be reutilized, except for a few elements. Ingalls said the cabins can be leveled up and straightened, but they will have to be capped to the new grade with concrete or some other material, and other elements will have to be renewed for both redoing the access to the cabin and keeping infiltration and cracking to a minimum. Ingalls showed an example of the chinking problem. He said that once there is an open crack, everything that can will go in there. Ingalls showed an overview of the cabins, demonstrating that the interiors are actually in very good shape. He said there is essentially nothing wrong with the interiors, except that in the two -pin cabin, there are some issues related to water infiltration in the walls due to roof failings, but that can be mitigated pretty readily. Ingalls said it will take very little effort to get it back into shape. Regarding windows, Ingalls said that some of the windows are from the 1850s, and some of the windows are from the 1880s. He said these buildings were an accretion of everyone's parts and pieces, and that's how these things were built. Ingalls said these were done in a very short period of time and moved into and functioned very well. Ingalls displayed a photograph showing one of the worst elements of this, due to the roof failure. He said there is water damage and mold, which is not a serious mold but is wet rot and dry rot, which is not particularly dangerous. Ingalls said there is not a great deal of mildew, but all that can be mitigated by boron infusion into the logs. He said that can be done a couple of times, and it will seal them up and prevent any more mold, mildew, and insect infestation for the next 75 years. Ingalls said that sometimes there is a log that looks good but isn't, and sometimes there is one that looks terrible but isn't. He said it is kind of a piece by piece thing, but there is actually no timber in the photograph that cannot be restored. Ingalls said the roof is a different situation. Ingalls said that most of the subsheathing to nail the shingles to is in good shape. He said that there is one section where some of the subsheathing will have to be removed when the roof is put back on, but the rafters and all the original material can be saved and used. Ingalls said it is possible to repurpose Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 7 some buildings and rafters from other buildings to insert there, and he did not think anyone would know the difference. Ingalls said the large windows there and on the other side were used when the Girl Scouts occupied this for 20 years, and the windows would pull down for celebrations in the park. He said there are windows on both sides of the building that would be usable during activities. Ingalls said the inspection of the underpinnings of the logs and the floor joists show that the floor joists are like rocks; one might think they would be rotted out, but they are perfectly fine. He said the sill plate logs can be jacked up. Ingalls said the ones to the left side that look terrible really are not that bad, and the ones on the right can be spliced. He said one would keep 80% of it and splice in 20% of it and lift it up onto the original pilings. Ingalls said the sway back in the middle where the dog trot goes through has sunk, because the pilings have sunk. He said that can be jacked up easily and quickly. Ingalls said the center dog trot needs to have the concrete pulled out, and the concrete foundations on the other side have also been subject to some sinking and will have to be capped on the surfaces a couple of inches just to level the whole thing out. Ingalls said this can be done in sections, but the roof is probably the most primary thing to do. He said it is better to get it level and do the roof than it would be to do the roof and get it level. Ingalls said those things kind of need to go on concurrently. Ingalls said the chimneys are in good shape, and he feels that a high percentage of the material can be reused and not much would have to be replaced. He said the cabin does have electricity and could be a great place for young people to use and have access to the upper City Park and get a little bit of a Living History Farm kind of approach to how things were 170 years ago. Ingalls said this is not as bad as it looks, has very high integrity, and is a real asset to the City in connecting time and place and the history of Johnson County with the first settlers. He said this really is the only real connection to all these great people that made the City what it has developed into. Ingalls said that with a little fundraising and planning, the building could be stabilized to make it viable for another 75 years. He said the Optimist Club, Girl Scouts, and Cub Scouts have expressed an interest in donating. Michaud asked about the function of the dog trot. Ingalls said that is wood that was set in there vertically with a railing on top to put in the screened partitions. He said he would like to see the screens kept if possible. Ingalls said the buildings are supposed to be kept as built and designed, in order to keep the highest integrity. Ingalls said that historically, dog trots were just open breezeways through buildings. He said that people came along later and screened them in, closed them in, or did other things. Ingalls said they were designed to be just open breezeways through the building. Carroll said that the paperwork for the grant has been filed. She said the State has found that the cabins are eligible for the National Register. Carroll said that besides finding a way to begin working on the cabins, she feels it would be wise to find a way to actually make application and nominate the cabins for the National Register. She said she has discovered that they do not need to be in historic condition in order to be nominated. Carroll said this might be something the Commission could help with. Ingalls said he had signed on to do a TAN assessment, as he has been on the State's Technical Advisory Network for quite a long time as an architectural historian and archaeologist. He said that going through the TAN process would not cost the City anything. Ingalls said they take whatever action is necessary, and that sets its formal eligibility, its assessment of potential eligibility, and gets it in the records, with the preliminary work done by an architectural historian who is noted on the list of people who review these log cabins. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 8 Ingalls said that is not terribly complicated, and once that procedure is completed, it sets this up for the National Register nomination. He said that a property does not have to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places to get grants from the State. Ingalls said it just has to be listed as eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places. He said it is therefore worth it to get on the list of eligible properties, and this is clearly eligible. Carroll said she has already received information from the State Historical Society to proceed with a TAN evaluation. Ingalls said this is a resource that is not just one of those picnic areas with poles and a slab, but this is complex. He said it is historical, it's interactive, and it has teaching and learning and other aspects to it that a regular park shelter does not have. Ingalls said these buildings are unique, and not only are they rare, but they are getting increasingly rarer. Ingalls said that Gilbert's trading post has been gone for a long, long time. He said it was gone by the 1870s at least. Ingalls said this is actually the only real replica by the men who worked on that building. He said these were the people here in 1840 and they worked at the trading post and they knew Gilbert and they built this cabin. Ingalls said it was 40 years after the fact, but nonetheless, this is as close as it gets. Ingalls said this is a recreation done by men who had actually been there. He said one doesn't get any closer to history than that. Swaim asked what kind of role the Commission might play. Ingalls responded that certainly word of mouth and fundraising and all of that needs to be initiated and pushed along, and to just have the Commission say it finds this favorable is a step in the right direction. Ingalls said if there could be some kind of clear statement that this is already an asset, but it is an underutilized asset; it is unique, and it has great potential for these educational and recreational activities. He said that in itself would be a positive statement that would help move things forward and could get the word out to various people that this can happen. Miklo said that the TAN grant has already been approved, and the State has provided some funding to put a plan together to stabilize if not restore the cabins. He said the plan has been started, and the next step is to come up with the funds to implement the plan. Ingalls confirmed this and said that concurrently with the plan is for someone to write the National Register nomination. He said he wanted to move the TAN forward to get it moved through the system and get it on the record and outline the basic restoration procedures and objectives. Swaim asked if it would then be appropriate for the Commission to write a letter of support. She said she would be willing to draft such a letter. Miklo said the National Register nomination is what the Commission and City staff would need help with. Ingalls said it would be good to get something in the papers and before the public and then get written endorsements from the Optimists Club and the Girl Scouts. He said he did not think he needed anything in writing at this phase, although he would like to have that later, but he would like the Commission to notify the Parks and Recreation Department that it supports this and supports the plan. Miklo said another resource would be Friends of Historic Preservation, in terms of fundraising. Ingalls stated that if this is untended for another two or three years, one will not really be able to salvage it, except at a cost of about three times what it would cost to do it now. He said he had worked recently with an experienced local contractor who would be interested in this project. Swaim said it sounds very promising. She said it is clear this project is in good hands. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 9 Ingalls said it can be done. He provided an estimate from the contractor he had recently used. Ingalls said the first phase of redoing the roof, jacking it up, and leveling it comes to a total of $53,000. He said the next phase of the interior reconditioning would be $20,000, and the final large -scale log replacement is $30,000, totaling around $100,000. Ingalls said the estimate is probably about $20,000 over what it would actually cost. He stated that both buildings can be rehabbed to operational use for a 50 to 75 -year lifespan for $80,000 +, but the initial $50,000 is critical. Ingalls said at that point the buildings will still be usable, they'll be level, they'll be stable, and they'll be reroofed. He said that chinking the buildings could be a Scout project. Ingalls said he intends to also appeal to the Girl Scout alumnae who used the buildings for 20 years. Ingalls said that Carroll is going to be the lead on this to coordinate it, but he would like to help her. He said he knows the contractors. Ingalls said the Commission might have connections with regard to fundraising and other issues. The consensus of the Commission was to give the project a show of support. Ingalls said he could perhaps be a point person with regard to writing a newspaper piece or getting people out there to get this in front of the public. Swaim thanked Ingalls and Carroll for the presentation and said they could count on the Commission for its support. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 10, 2011: MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's November 10, 2011 meeting, as written. Litton seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 (Downing, McMahon, and Trimble absent). OTHER: Regarding the project where the synagogue is currently located on Washington and Johnson Streets, Miklo said he could not go into too much detail, because it will be a future agenda item. He said there is a rezoning proposal there, and the building will probably come down and be replaced with an apartment building. Miklo said the property is in a conservation district, so the Commission would have the task of approving the exterior design. He said the proposal for the rezoning will probably be before the Planning and Zoning Commission in January. Miklo said that even if it is not rezoned, there is likely to be an apartment building constructed on the site. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z N N O U Z O Q w N w w CL U O F- U) O U w w w �- U Z o Q N Z w H H Q E 2 0 O 0 In Z � W:9 E � 15 c E N Q Z O a Q u u z n u w 2 u XOOZ ! w Y N X X X X X X X X O V- V- LLI X X X X X X X X X X r X X 0 X X X X X X X Q V- X X X X X X X CD O O O O V- X X X X X X X 0 X X X X X X X X X X IT LU V- X X X X 0 X X 0 X X CD 0 X 0 X X 0 X X 0 X 0 N VII X X X X X X X X O O O LLJ X X X X X X X X X X 0 X X X X X X X X X M X X X X X X X N O O O M V- X X X X X X X r O O a X M N M It It N N mot' M N W- r- - .- - - r- rn rn Cn rn Cn rn rn rn rn rn Cn N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M C'7 M M M M w F- cQ Z G O Q Q Q Y LLI w Y ~ J = z ui a z N Z Z Q w O O w Q o z o Z z O z L w Z = Q J w w LLI m Y Y m V Q p Q Z Q m m D J Lr L to H E 2 0 O 0 In Z � W:9 E � 15 c E N Q Z O a Q u u z n u w 2 u XOOZ ! w Y