The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-09-2012 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, February 9, 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 1204 Sheridan Avenue (egress window and window well) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff F) Correspondence Correspondence from Jean Walker regarding Melrose Avenue properties affected by proposed University of Iowa development. G) Consideration of Minutes for January 12, 2012 H) Adjournment Staff Report February 3, 2012 Historic Review for 1204 Sheridan Avenue District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Andrew Sherburne, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 1204 Sheridan Avenue, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of a basement egress window and new window well. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.5 Foundations 4.13 Windows Staff Comments This two -story hip -roof house dates from 1923, (per Iowa City Assessor), and is a later example of Prairie influenced design. The low pitch of the roof, broad eaves, strong horizontal lines, and small front porch are all common to the style. Note `shirtwaist effect' of horizontal trim in line with second floor window sills. No architect or builder is identified, and it was possibly a catalogue house or built from mail order plans. Exterior materials include textured concrete block foundation, lapped wood siding, and asphalt shingles. The applicant is proposing the installation of a basement egress window and new window well on the east side of the house, at the location of the existing south -most basement window. This work is part of a basement remodeling project. The proposed window is a Windsor Pinnacle aluminum -clad wood double -hung approx. 3' 2" x 5' 1" with simulated divided lights in the upper sash that will match the divided light pattern of the existing basement windows. (Note that Windsor Pinnacle windows are included in the list of approved windows for Minor Review.) The proposed new window well will be built of textured concrete block to match the existing foundation. The height of the window well above grade is minimal, and there is no indication on the drawings of a grate or cover over the well. The design appears to meet building code requirements, and this will be confirmed when the applicant applies for a building permit. 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, and the new material will be a similar 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. The proposed egress window appears to be a good match. In Staffs opinion, the proposed work meets the requirements of the guidelines for both the window and the window well. The only missing information is in regard to the style and pattern of the muntins of the top sash. These are required to be adhered to both sides of the glass, and cannot be snap -in type. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1204 Sheridan Avenue, as presented in the application, with the following condition: ■ Provide information on window muntins. A S• vi 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 K For Staff Use: Date submitted: >/ / l4"/ /� ❑ Certificate of No material Effect C+ ertificate 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 Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property C L . (Plea ❑ Property Owner Name: _ /�� ,1- r" f,,/ -S4, Email: Phone Number: 07f) Address: City: ,�•, i J . t! j f . �, State: mot. Zip Code: S Z SiL' ❑ Contractor / Consultant Name: 'e c 41e �, is' f r L r irk✓ Email: /_��'�^ lc� . ,.�ir ��SL'.[r'`i /�; rv'R' ne Number: Address:..() S /y /7i�t S f yr City: �) ,�� :- � State: -i1i Zip Code:S -z z Z Proposed Project Information Address: .l C y Sl, �. ,G�� ✓< Use of Property: Sr %� ,�,e, Date Constructed (if known): /7 u 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: 0 Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ College Green Historic District Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Nonhistoric Appttcati> Requ><re�nents 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.) ❑ 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 1' ��J 1l r .� Ct' s r rt c'r✓ r ,� . �r �„a i ^ n t r n 'f - .✓ �. l � .� � Ii[' f' �'� ` ' �'�- � -r, C� s sue- � a Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: J ppdadmin/histpres /app_for historicreview.doc 12/11 WINDSOR A Woodgrain Millwork Company Customer Information: Phone: Fax: Dea nformation: Customer GILCREST JEWETT LUMBER CO Quote 1100 ALICES RD Short Form PO BOX 1000 QUOTE EXPIRES N/A WAUKEE IA 50263 -1000 QUOTE DATE Phone: 515- 987 -3600 Fax: 1 -515- 987 -7194 Quote Not Ordered BID BY Delivery Information: Phone: Fax: QUOTE # STATUS CUSTOMER PO# DATE PRINTED 258416 None SALES TAX: 10/13/2011 10:20 AM CUSTOMER JOB NAME TERMS QUOTE NAME PROJECT NAME Egress Basement Leopold Line # Room ID Overall RO Overall Frame Price Qty Extended 100 None Assigned 38 1/8" X 61 1/4" 37.375' X 60.75' $288.55 1 $288.55 11 4 Pinnacle Wood Double Hung 3226 -1 Complete Unit Dual Low -E IG 4 -9/16 Jamb „„ Ext (Callout:3 -0 x 4- 10)(Pine)(Beige Jambliner)(Champagne Hardware)(No g$ Brickmould)(Standard Sill Nosing)(White Screen - Not Applied)(BetterVue) Q Performance Data:(U- Value: 0.25)(SHGC: 0.19)(VT: 0.42)(CR: 50)(AL: 0.11) 3iai6 Ouote Comments: Disclaimer: SUB-TOTAL: $288.55 LABOR: $0.0 FREIGHT: $0.0 SALES TAX: $20.2 [TOTAL: $308.7 Submitted By: Date: Accepted By: Date: Windsor Windows and Doors Quote #: 258416 Page 1 of 1 0. i4f ti CL, Ch 41J Vu SA ti cn Ci 73 41J Vu o v r4— (Ist M- 17 'nod Date: February 3, 2012 low "i City, Historic Preservation Commission City 11x11, 110 F. V'ashington Sticct, Iom,.i City Ir\. 53240 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 January report. Certificates of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff review None Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff review None Minor Review — Pre - approved items — Staff review 648 S. Lucas Street (install radon mitigation pipe on south side of house) 1211 E. Court Street (window replacement with Marvin Ultimate Insert Replacement windows) Signifying its historic importance, most of the Melrose Neighborhood is on the National Register of Historic Places, and the City has noted that efforts should be made to preserve it. However, less than a week before the topic was to be brought to the Board of Regents, The University of Iowa told the Neighborhood that it was purchasing two Neighborhood houses and demolishing eight to make a temporary parking lot for up to 300 cars at Melrose Place (though the entrance appears problematic and those 300 cars could be disruptive to Melrose Avenue traffic). No time was allowed to find alternative solutions. The Regents approved the UI's purchase of the houses, even though one property is in the Neighborhood's National Historic District and includes the Neighborhood's last (100 - year -old) barn. The Ul is proceeding with its plans, choosing a consultant for the project even though it has not yet obtained City approval for the necessary vacation of Melrose Place. Since the 1920s, the UI's modus operandi has been to buy neighborhood homes and use them temporarily before demolishing them to build a large institutional building or parking lot. Thus many historic subdivisions in the area adjacent to the Neighborhood, dating back to the 1920s and earlier, have been erased by the Ul. The Melrose Neighborhood contains the last historic houses in this area - houses occupied by people who chose (and still choose) to live there to walk to work at the Ul. So the Neighborhood's history is a shared history with the Ul, and for the Ul to destroy the Neighborhood is for it to destroy its own (as well as the City's) heritage. In spite of that, and even though it has said it is in favor of historic preservation and has given assurances that it does not intend to purchase any further Neighborhood properties, the Ul has continued to purchase properties. Once the Ul purchases these properties, it can destroy them, and the City cannot preserve them. Also, these properties go off the tax rolls, causing a deficit in funds for the City. Due to its historic importance, the Melrose Neighborhood should be off the table as regards further acquisition /destruction by the Ul, which should make its future plans with that in mind. Once an area is cleared, its historic properties are lost forever. To ensure this Neighborhood is preserved, the City needs to uphold its stated commitment to the Neighborhood's preservation and make a clear statement to that effect directly to the Ul, perhaps stating that the Ul should not purchase any further properties east of Melrose Place. Similar statements by the Historic Preservation Commission should also be made. The Ul needs to uphold its commitment to historic preservation (and preservation of its own history) and look elsewhere than the historic Melrose Neighborhood for future expansion and not play Monopoly in our Historic District. This is not an industrial wasteland. This is where we live - our architecturally - historic houses, our homes, our history and our heritage. The playing field is very unequal if Ul officials are planning for the destruction of our very homes, especially without our timely input or consideration of less- destructive alternatives. If the Ul omitted the possibility of using the historic Melrose Neighborhood for destruction /development, it should be able, with the help of the considerable brainpower of the university, to come up with innovative and very satisfactory alternatives. If the Ul keeps picking away at the Neighborhood, it will disappear like all the other little neighborhoods in the area already erased by the Ul. This is the last neighborhood of this historic area. The attached PDF is from the Regent's website apparently, via a link sent in an email from UIHC's Dr. Robillard's office today. It is for a presentation to the Regents 2/6. See pages 35 and 56, a large building labeled Medical Campus is placed right over Jack and Michaelanne Widness' house which dates from 1870 (in the Melrose Neighborhood) and has its own separate National Register of Historic Places designation. The Ul and UIHC have said they want to keep us updated on any plans involving our Neighborhood but they did not tell us about this, either now or at a meeting we had with them December 6. This PDF underscores the urgency of preserving the Melrose Neighborhood from destruction by the Ul. Please forward this email to the members of the Historic Preservation Commission. Thanks, Jean O 4. O 0 m LO co 0 I r,.i zlol i 0 10 1 Im CD U') MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2012 EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Will Downing, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble, and Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Kent Ackerson, Dana Thomann STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Rich Johnson RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Trimble called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA; There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 437 S. Governor Street Peterson said this house is in the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. 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. Peterson said 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. Peterson said 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. Peterson also noted that Crestline is not included in the list of approved windows for Minor Review. Peterson said that fitting the egress windows into the existing openings without changing the exterior trim is good. Peterson said the application did not include product information for the Crestline window, and that she was not sure if this particular model of window meets the guideline recommendations. Peterson said that product information for the new windows should be submitted and reviewed for compliance. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 437 S. Governor Street, pending final approval by staff and the chair. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9 -0 ( Ackerson and Thomann absent). Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 2 515 Van Buren Street Peterson said this house is in the Northside Historic District. 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. Peterson said the applicant is proposing to install a window well product manufactured by Wellcraft. This product would include integral steps or ladder and a cover. The Wellcraft window well is made of polycarbonate. Peterson showed the commission a product pamphlet for Wellcraft. Peterson said the overall size and height above grade for this proposed window well was not clear from the application, and information on the future egress window was not provided. Peterson said 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. The guidelines further recommend 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. Rich Johnson, representing the applicant, said the window well and future egress window would allow the owner to finish the basement for more living space, such as a play room or game room. Miklo said that to be compliant with the guidelines, the window well should be poured concrete or concrete masonry construction. Also, information on the overall size, height above grade, and style of cover should be provided for review and approval. Swaim said that it was clear the proposed window well product does not meet the guidelines. There was consensus among the commissioners that the proposed window well product does not meet the guidelines. MOTION: Swaim moved to defer a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 515 Van Buren Street. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9 -0 (Ackerson and Thomann absent). 610 E. Jefferson Street Peterson said this house is a designated Iowa City landmark, and has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 1995, based on architectural significance. This house is approximately 150 years old. Peterson said the National Register nomination refers to an original construction date of 1854, and the Site Inventory Form states that the house was built in 1865. Its original location was adjacent to St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church at Linn and Jefferson Streets, and in 1891 it was moved to its present location. The historic name for this house is St. Mary's Rectory. Peterson said that for the majority of its 150 -year history, the house has been a private residence unaffiliated with the church. Peterson said the front porch may date from 1891 when the house was moved. Peterson said the turned posts are original; the roof balustrade, spindled frieze, and porch balustrade are all modern replacements fabricated from standard dimension lumber. The symmetrical front fagade has an original multi -light transom above the entrance door, with narrow multi -pane sidelights, also original. The existing 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. Peterson said the siding on the front of the house has been identified as original. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 3 Peterson said 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. Peterson said the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook includes specific guidelines, with illustrations, for recommended treatment of balustrades and handrails on historic buildings. The new railings on this house do not meet the guidelines. The design of the porch balustrade and stair handrails is not consistent with the historic architectural style of this building. As an alternative, Miklo said it would be acceptable to build new railings that match the existing railings on the sides of this porch. Swaim said that she appreciates the effort required to maintain old buildings. Swaim said the new railings do not meet the guidelines and cannot be approved. The commission agreed that the new railings do not meet the guidelines. Rich Johnson said he would work with staff to come up with a design that meets the owner'sw requirements for strength and durability as well as meeting the historic preservation guidelines. MOTION: Swaim moved to defer a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 610 E. Jefferson Street. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9 -0 (Ackerson and Thomann 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. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 8 2011: MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's December 8, 2011 meeting, as written. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9 -0 (Ackerson and Thomann absent). OTHER: Regarding the pending development project in the 500 block of East Washington Street, Michaud spoke about the inappropriateness of a high density apartment building replacing the existing residential /commercial buildings. She asked if the Commission would make a statement regarding this issue. Trimble agreed that it was a great concern to the community but at this point questioned the benefit of the Commission's involvement. She noted that the issue of a conservation district including these properties was considered by the Commission in the past and the Commission chose not to include the area within a historic or conservation district. Miklo noted that two of the three buildings were determined to be non - contributing as historic structures due to the extent of remodeling of the facades. The third was determined to be a contributing structure. Michaud expressed frustration that the Commission deals with minor details like window wells and porch railings, yet at the same time demolition and major construction projects are allowed to occur immediately adjacent to historic districts. She asked if some consideration could be given for properties in historic districts that are subject to tight regulations. She expressed a need to have some controls on adjacent properties. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 4 Miklo said that the City Council has identified neighborhood stabilization as a strategic priority. He noted that staff had been instructed to look at a wide range of policy options to promote neighborhood stabilization. He said this would include reviewing zone tools. He noted that conservation districts could be such a tool that would provide a buffer around historic districts. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Chery Peterson Z _O O V Z _O H Q W CO) W Ix CL U 2 O F- _� 2 D O V w w W N V Z O Q N D Z W H I- Q M r N r r r r r O qt- M r O� Q> co N ti at r cc O a N r co M o) N N O X X X X X X X X X r O a X M 11, N M I t N N 19T M N u C) (7) 0) CY) CF) C) CA 0) 0) CF) 0) LV M M M M M M M M M M M F- Q Z O Q Q Y ul IX J W Q = J � Q � J Q V O D Q p Ld z CL Z .J Q LL O 0 W O Q Z Z Z D O Z = Q m Z Q X Y v Q p C7 Q Q O 2 Q E O v Ci o �z X Lu .� N N C N c c y E 0) a) o CL Q u u z n u w n XOOz w Y