HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2012 Historic Preservation Commission1
1
t
GU
iJ ,�r
n n i
8
l IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, May 10, 2012
ICity Hall,410 E.Washington Street
Emma J Harvat Hall
5:15 p.m.
i
A) Call to Order
B) Roll Call
C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
l
D) Certificate of Appropriateness
1. 1301 Muscatine Street (Window repair/replacement. Note—this is a late item and does
not include a staff report.)
i
E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
F) Subcommittee report on potential local historic districts
1. Jefferson Street National Historic District
2. Melrose National Historic District
1 G) Report on Iowa Statewide Historic Preservation Conference
1 H) Consideration of Minutes for April 12,2012
1
1
I) Adjournment
i
i
I
i
1
i
t
1
1
t
i
i
1
i
1
Application for anode ROVieW
Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or For Staff Use:
properties located in a historic district or conservation district Date submitted: ^1 / / I L
pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for
the Historic Review process,explanation of the process and ❑ Certificate of No material Effect
regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness
Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office ❑ Major review
Intermediate review
at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HPhandbook ❑ 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 Owner/Applicant Information
(Please check primary contact person)
❑ Property Owner Name: /!f i �,/c/S/N 6 �66 o 64-1 S/,i/
Email: Phone Number:(3/9 3 - 9 2/ 2
Address: 3,Z2 67. ,:j- ST
City: 'TA G'f r� State: ,.14- Zip Code: 5-.2 74'0
❑ Contractor/Consultant Name: /2f,tid y //?S S'Ll t/6 CI c i GG. C
Email: /P 4.4c.c /4,5 6 h?e76s/-6-/.07 Phone Number:(1/g) 4/30 —3249
Address: /f2 2 C_ ,4u f4 /4 hU 4":-
City:.4"4 C/ y r•- State: .41. Zip Code: s 2 2 fr&
Proposed Project Information
Address: )3i9/ mG1SC�!-7/.elG C1& 5 `{7
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
Governor-Lucas Street Conservation
District
Within the district,this property is classified as:
Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric
{
1
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 rejected.
O Addition
(Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room,porch,deck,etc.)
O Building Elevations 0 Floor Plans 0 Photographs
O Product Information 0 Site Plans
O Alteration
(Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement,skylights,window opening alterations,deck or porch
replacement/construction,baluster repair,or similar. If the project is a minor alteration,photographs and drawings to describe the
scope of the project are sufficient.)
O Building Elevations 0 Photographs 0 Product Information
O Construction of new building
O Building Elevations 0 Floor Plans 0 Photographs
O Product Information 0 Site Plans
O Demolition
(Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding,or any portion of a building,such as porch,chimney,
decorative trim,baluster,etc.)
O Photographs 0 Proposal of Future Plans
O Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance.
XPhotographs 0 Product Information
O Other:
Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application.
Proposed Project Details
Project Description:
Selieii /l( Gil/ *le/Ot.i-/c/ /7est.d Oerrqie, daell /74_ /(2,'Sf..7 .4
"at c A nef 4 /1 AA /
Materials to be Used:
Exterior Appearance Changes:
ppdadmin/histpres/app_for_historicreview.doc 12/11
k
,
-
iri 1
,IV
. V.1
. .
• .
I
/\ ,),)"(\ ,MENARDS QUOTE paw 412W2
---N
C)12 .v-d
\
MENARDS . 2605 NAPLES AVE 1 °- S OP' V
_ IOWA CITY,IA 52240 )V1-
-
(319)358-9706
, r
(319)358-9605
Store Number 3091
Guest Randy Wesskng Store Code: IOWA \ k
814 7th Ave Team Member: 493366
:
Quote Number: TBD
. .
4-,-,
Caresville,IA 52241 puma Name: Unassigned Quote
Phone: (319)430-3209 .1).#4•&.1 01
Fax:
t-ine.i,"I auant,a1 1.•:2..::,;•-••ilNi464..41iii*ik......0:1"4.-i k..?...-.;.s:•!.•_ -::::---•-:- .•..'.... ''-• r'::.:':. Vr.gtftrirk.'.' :::1.00.11tricV:
100-1 1 $457.59 $457.69'
• IMO
-
CladPocket Double Hung DH 27.75 x45
Rough Opening: 2'4 1W X 3'9 114" Pocket Call INidth=27.75,Pocket Call Height=45.Sash Split a Even
Frame Size: 2 3 314"X 3'9" Hardware Finish=White,Sash Limiter=14o Sash limiter,Finger '
Plows=With Finger Noe(s),Window Egress=Dons Not Meet Egress
Screen Option BetlerVue Mesh,Screen Style F Jil Screen,Screen
1 Frame Color=Brilliant White
Energy Rating c Other Glass Options,Glazing Typo=Insulated. .
law-E OpOon=Low-E,Tinted Glass 4 No Tint(Giber),Glass Style=
is
P> • II Clear,Tempered Glass=Not Tempered,Preserve Glass=Presierve, 41
Neat Glass=Neat IG Options=Argon . 4Q-/
...I 1 Assembly=Pocket Unit,Jambliner Color=White Jambliners
t- 1 Operation(Outside View)=OH
(„C k.0 Cik,\001
Exterior Color ra White,Interior Finish=.•Brilliant VOSS%)Paint
Sustainable Forestry certified(SF1)11 Yes
. . FR-2 3MC . Unit i Bottom:None
Unit'i Top:1318"Clad Bead SOL wiFuil Surround-Wood Grille,
Unit is viewed from Me outside looking in
- Colonial.Extents'GrilleMaterial le Aluminum Clad.Interior Grille Finish (
Room Location: None Assigned r•Went White Paint Exterior Grille Finish=Brirliarrt White.4W1H \ I'' 'AY'
.-.- -
tine Item 1.Quantiti .:•• ,.... :' - -- ; 7:- -.BeNspktappgromp- ...,:.::....:.,:-• .--, 3...-::. , •• .:-....- .:•-t*Pdosi:.-:-•.*Tiassi.frice
200-1 2 5500.87 51.001.74'
CladPocket Double Huge DPI 33.75 x 57.75
Rough Opening: 2'to 1 br X4 10" Pocket Call Width=33.75,Pocket Call Height=f 7.75,Sash Split=
Frame Sire: 2 9314.'X 4'9 3/4" Even
hardware Finish=White.Sash Limiter te No Sash Limiter,Finger
Plows=WC F Plow(s).INinclow Egress=Does Not Meet Egress
1 1 Screen Option= Mesh,Screen Style Full Screen.Screen
Ill Frame Color=BrilhantWhits
Energy Rating a Other Glass Options,Glazing Toe=Insulated,
.5 il Low-E Option e Low-E,Tinted Glass=No Tint(Clear),Glass Style=
t.. Clear.Tempered Glass mi Not Tempered.Preserse Glass'e Presierve, ,
ki..2 • Neat Glass=Neat,IG Options=Argon
.1. Assembly=Pocket Unit,Jambiner Color=White Jarnbliners
I Operation(Outside View)=OH
EldellOr Color mi White.Interior Finish=Brilliant White Paint. .
- PR-21134" . Sustainable Forestry Certified(5n) Yes
Unit 1 Botont None •
Unit is viewed flOM The outside looidd9 in unit 1 Top•.1 Mr Clad Bead SDL w/Fuk Surround-Wood Gale.
Colonial,External Grille Material=Aluminum Chid,Interior Grille Finish
Room Location None Assigned
=Brilliant White Paint Exterior Grille Finish=Br:lent White,4VVi ft
• i .
•
• .
Print oars: */211/2012 Z0900 PIA theism 1 of 3
•
CO/TO "MIWA •
rvr )0eint-T1TW FONVNIel — —— — -
986SEEE61E I 60:01 zumneoe
1 Luwltam I CWrWy'_'_ •• ..:;..:p _act,_" • r „Ili-«. .. ,- .. .s. v. .� .-•--- •-...;• :. ' 'I U.n it Price... .:T P! . •
300-1
$498.54 - $499.54•
1
Rough Opening: 2'41ir X 4'10" CladPocket Casement HL 27.75 x 57.75
Pocket Cad Width as 27.75,Pocket Cat Height=57.75
Frame Size: 2'33!4"X 4'9 3/4" Lode Type=T,Hardison'Type•Folding Handle,HS rdM+are Finish=
White,Sash limiter:No Sash Limiter.Window ligrsss a Dass Not
Meet Egress
EEr[`{ Screen Option=BetterVue Mesh.Screen Frame Co ar=Bridiant
1 1111
1 E `er ►Rating=Other alas'opbo�s,Glatt Type•�Insulated,Low-E Option=Law-E.Ted Glass 5 No Tart(Clear),Glass style Clear.Tempered Glass=Not Tempered,Preserve(-1a55=Preserve.
1 III Neat Glass=Neat.IG Options=Argon
=Pocket Unit
nratko (Outside View)=HL
Exterior Color=White,Interior Finish=Brilliant Whoa Paint
•FR-2,amt. • Sustainable Forestry Certified(SR)=Yes
1 319"Clad Bead SOt_w/Full Surround-Wood Grillt.Colonial from
Unit is viewed from the outside 1ookNug in- Top Down,External Grille Material=Aluminum Clan.Interior Grille
Room Location: NonAssigned Fetish=Brilliant White Paint Exterior Grille Finish a Brilliant White.
4W1 H Y {tom pelts.:;': ;Ti Pia .•
:Liae>>tem 112uanttAr;_•. ... -' •; ....._ $499.54 $499.54
400-1 1
-
CledPoakat Casement HR 27.75 x 57.75 . T5 •
Rough Opening: 2'411"X 4 10" ����p Width=27.75,Pods ad Ham,t•IsrdwWe Finish=
Frame Size: 2'3 314"X 4'9 3/4" Lock Type=T.Hardware Type Folding Doss Not
White.Sash Limiter No Sash Limiter.Window Egress a
Meet Egress Frame Color=Brlliant
till Screen Option=BetterVue Mesh,Screen White
Effigy Rating=Ot ter Glass Opp,Gig Typs=Insulated.
Low-E Option=t ow-S.Tinted Glass a No Tint(Ck. r).Glass Style=Clear.Tempered Glass=Not Tempered,Preserve G�=Presierve,
y f Neat Glass=Neat IG Options=Argon
� Ar
` Assembly=Pocket Unit
I
/ Operation(Outside View)=HR
= Wile Paint,
/ Sustainable Forestry White,Interior YBriUiant
PR-233M
1318"Clad Bead SDI..w/Fud Surround-Wood Grille,Colonial from
Unit is viewed from the outside looking in- Top Down.External Grille Material=Aluminum C14,Interior Grille
Finish=Brilliant White Paint.Exterior Grille Finish=Brilliant White,
Room Location: None Assigned 4W 1 H T
is. u
Into$loos I•Cuan>!�r'•. $500.77 $500.77'
500-1 1
CladPocket Casement HR 31.5 x 67.75 t•57.76
Rough Opening: 2'8"X 4'10" Pocket Cad Width*31.5,Pocket Call Height
Size: 2'71/2"X 4'9 3/4" Las=t Type=T.Hardware Type=Folding Handle Hardware Finish=
White,Sash Limiter=No Sash Limiter,Window Egress a Does Not
i
Screen Option=BetterVue Mesh,Screen Frame Color=Brilliant
I IIIWhite Tr Insulated,— Meet Egress
I Rating Other Glass Options.Glazing Tips L w-E 9 rLow-E,Tinted Glass=No Tint(Clear),Glass S�_°' Clear,Tempered Glass a Not Tempe,Preserve Glass=Presierve,
— Neat Glass=Neat,IG Options=Argon
a. Assembly=Pocket Unit
Operation(Outside View)a HR
Exterior Color=While.Interior Finish=Brilliant White Paint,
Sustainable Forestry Certified(SF)=Yes
PR-271Z Wood r-M*.Colonial from
le' 'I p Clad External SDI Mamm a Alumimrm,lad,Interior Grille
Unit is viewed from pre"Me io0�r+li Top Down,txbsrnat Exterior Grille F(ni:Jt=Brilliant White,
Room Location: None Assigned Whits Paint
Print D5'b: 4r2a2ol z Z OO Pat
v,ftes: 2 or s
EA/ZA 3Jtid IT )I?IfIMTTW Sfl?RlN 1 ciRf,CAf'FATPT RR:WI 7.TA7./R7./bail
1 •Line Item 1. '" -_ s: -!.. 4. .
5004 1 !' '- !!rl4! . .Teen?pes
1 5500.77 $500.77*
Rough%ening: r gn x 4•1 f CledPocket Casement HI.31,5 x 57.75
Pocket Con Width=31.5,Pocket Call Heights 57.75
Frame Size: 2'71/2"X 4'93/4" Lock Typo=T,Hardware Type=Folding Handle,Hardware Finish=
White.Sash Limiter s No Sash Limiter.Window Egram=Does Not
! =BetteA/ue Mesh,Screen Frame Coke=Brilliant
white
tll. Energy Rating=Other Glass Options,Glazing Type'insulated.
t ow-E Option=Law-5,Tmtied Glass=No Tint(Clew),Glass Style=i Clear,Tempered Glass=Not Temperod,Preserve Glass=Presierve.
W Neat Glass=Neat,IG Options=Argon
\ i Assembly=Pocket Unit
�'t Operation(Outside View)=HL
• Exterior Color=White,Interior Finish=Brilliant Whit.)Paint,
. FR-r?tr - Sustainable Forestry Certified(SF1)=Yes
13/8"Clad Bead SOL w/Full Surround-Wood Grille-Colonial from
U n i t I s v i e w e d f r o m t h e o u t s i d e l o o k i n g b►. Top Down,External Grille Mat rial=Aluminum Clad Interior Gale
Room Location: None Assigned Finish=Brunt White Paint,Exterior Grille Finish=Brilliant White,
4W1HT
Total: ( $3,459.95 I
It purchased today you save$659.04
a4
Print Um 4128/20122.•49:00 PM nee : 3 of 3
CO/E8 3JVd OI 112101MT1IW SQ21tiW34 986S6SE6 TF t f A:b T 7T07 107 ita
I
a
•
r.
S
ry
„,,.. ,, l......---44 ,
■
•
e:,, ,
!.. �"
4ii
-4-
fiR Y
t 'r*
,/ rrl'
.A
T°t,
w;,
�.� ,
C
.—L i.�._. i... 9� #, s: yw 14•». ,.a fin.iPo,3t 4'.
'„,, .:....-_,:,....,,.........,. ...,:- .1-.\''' '''L'I'A''''4"At't--�_� l
rem
N., �> era... ^ O° .-.'`--',....-_..
■
eh
1-7--"drill
Iowa (Atv
'H 1St )ric Preservation Commission
ion' d•61''''''" y b;1"-'1- b°�= 1-14- ch
n
(.Ity Hall,-110 T',A'ashingtcm Street,lewd i.tty. l.A 52240
MEMORANDUM
I
Date: May 4,2012
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 February report.
Certificates of No Material Effect—Chair and Staff review
None
Intermediate Review—Chair and Staff review
636 S. Governor Street (demo exist'g one-stall detached garage/build new one-stall detached garage)
910 Bowery Street (replace two windows on the rear porch.)
1301 Muscatine Ave. (remove deteriorated chimney located near the rear center of the roof)
Minor Review—Pre-approved items—Staff review
None
1
P
i
i
1
a
z
v
�L
V
�L
0
1S lld39-IJ
-zz:P-z-
N NS I
�,
�\ �a
\ 11-l!" 14,
i
0) O
Y U
R
a
0
a
rn
c
a
L
c
u
c
c
0
Z
mi
,
.
0) O
Y U
R
a
0
a
rn
c
a
L
c
u
c
c
0
Z
mi
1
I
C
a Q
m 'OO >Id )12O �j,
N - -- .N
O . -,O
a
N - =m_N meld Puepooa9
m-- M tMn 5pS °o -
N Z •� N_- in �£T5*
.. - _1/§_;,.___ r4„_---1„--: - :-.:
•L
0 0 9T£ -
cn
.3, 1
a
�- 1uarT3iiiV£09
}' ^ m
IV,w - fix` �`` s. '1V{_
im 03
Z :2 Of tp SA .,44 II
...13,
. . . s ? _ a
c7
MI
N,, -o3 \C
ti
meld asoalaW a
- a a
0
R 11111. a
- *SiraegLalir
v
c a
ill Y U Z
1
s
E i'
€ E
I
1
i
F
1
1
1
r
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson,Thomas Baldridge,William Downing,Andrew Litton,Pam Michaud,
Ginalie Swaim,Dana Thomann,Alicia Trimble,Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker,David McMahon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Milo,Chery Peterson
1 OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Eckstein,Brad Moore,Justin Mulford, Steve Vincent,Jean Walker,Kevin
Watts,Maeve Clarke
a
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
I
None.
CALL TO ORDER: Trimble called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Mulford said he was before the Commission to discuss the possibility of going ahead with a plan he is discussing
with a fraternity. He said that the Sigma Nu Fraternity lost its house about five years ago and had been renting since
then. Watts said he is wondering if the two houses he owns at 111 and 115 South Governor could be demolished
1 and replaced with a new fraternity house built on the property.
1 Mulford said he has already had preliminary meetings with the Building Department. He said the Building
Department laid out everything he needed to have,and the rough plan is acceptable to the Building Department.
1 Mulford said he would like to have the Commission's input to see if the idea is feasible.
Trimble asked if the two properties have historic designations. Muilford replied that they are both contributing
structures. He added that there are four sorority houses in the immediate area.
Mulford said the fraternity is ready to commit to this plan. He said that before spending money on an architect,he
wanted to make sure this idea is feasible.
1 Peterson read from the section of the Preservation Guidelines discussing demolishing the primary building that
states that removing an historic structure is disallowed. Trimble said that based on the Guidelines,it appears that the
Guidelines do not allow the Commission to permit the demolition of properties designated as historic or contributing
properties.
Mulford said that the houses have been party houses for a very long time and have not been taken care of inside or
outside. He stated that he would like to put a building on there that is going to stay there for one hundred years,
because the current houses probably won't last another twenty-five years.
Trimble said that she has been on the Commission for five years,and she has never seen the Commission allow the
demolition of a contributing structure that was structurally sound. She said that she could not predict the
Commission's vote but would say that this does not look likely,based on her experience.
Regarding an appeal process,Miklo said the owner would first have to make an application to take the buildings
down and demonstrate that they are structurally unsound. Miklo said that the owner would have to go to the
expense of making an application,and to make an application,he would also have to go to the expense of showing
what would be put in place of the buildings.
1
l
1
1
k
I
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 2 of 13
Baldridge asked if there are properties just outside of the historic district that would be a good fit for this kind of
project. Mulford said there is an area of four properties that would work,but one of the middle properties is a
contributing property. He asked if it would be an option to have the houses moved.
Trimble said that oftentimes if a house is moved,it is no longer a contributing structure. She said that for National
Register eligibility,there has to be a reason,if the house is moved,that it can contribute outside of the district.
Trimble said these houses would no longer be contributing if they were moved,possibly even if they were moved
within the same conservation district.
Miklo said that one of the points of a conservation district is to conserve a neighborhood. He said that moving the
structures would be counter to that.
Walker said that she is the Melrose Neighborhood representative. She said that she wanted to discuss the vacation
of Melrose Place for the University to build a parking lot off Melrose Place. Walker showed the Melrose
Neighborhood on a map and the historic district within that neighborhood.
Walker said that 711 Melrose Avenue and 727 Melrose Avenue are within the historic district. She said that both
are contributing structures to the designation by the National Register of Historic Places. Walker said the University
is planning this parking lot and wants to have Melrose Place vacated up to a certain point.
Walker said that,in talking with the City,they have to have a two-way street coming in,but because this is so close
to the drive,the City prefers to have the traffic come out here(showing a place on the map),so the traffic turning
west has a chance to get out. She said that in order to have a two-way,with the property line where it is,the only
way they could save 711 is if the neighbor would give an easement over a small amount of his property.
Walker said that was pending when this went before the Planning and Zoning Commission,but Planning and Zoning
went ahead and approved the vacation of Melrose Place. She said this comes before the City Council on May 1.
Walker said the neighboring property owner has said that he does not wish to give an easement to the University.
She said this plan is therefore out,and the only way to get two lanes is if it encroaches on 711 Melrose Avenue.
Walker said that 711 Melrose Avenue also has an historic barn. She said it is 100 years old and is the last existing
barn in the neighborhood and is in pretty good shape. Walker said that in trying to preserve it,the University has
agreed to relocate the barn so that it would be preserved.
Walker said that now that the neighboring owner will not give an easement,711 is in jeopardy. She asked if the
Commission could send a supportive communication to the City Council to state that 711 should be preserved.
Walker said that it is an integral part of the historic district. She said that if it goes,then there are two properties that
are isolated.
Male(Ackerson?)asked if 711 is currently a residence. Walker replied that it is currently a residence. She said the
University bought it but,as part of buying it,allowed the previous owner to rent the house out to the people who
were renting it before. Walker said that was to stand for five years,although there could be a break in that contract.
Miklo suggested that,because the historic district is on the agenda and there are quite a few people waiting to hear
other items,this be discussed at that time. Walker said that would be fine; she just didn't want to miss out on this
being discussed.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Certificates of Appropriateness:
20 E.Market Street(door replacement in west addition).
509 Rundell Street(siding repair,repair/replace window by chimney).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 3 of 13
727 Rundell Street(replace `porch' window).
1501 Center Avenue(window replacement at east side).
1110 E College Street(carport demolition).
910 Bowery Street(replace rear window).
Peterson said that one motion could approve all of these items. Miklo said that the details are listed in the packet,
and the Commission members should feel free to ask any questions.
i
Regarding 501 Rundell Street, Swaim said that the Commission does not have any purview over paint color. She
I did not want people to think that was something on which the Commission ruled. Peterson said she advised the
applicant that the Commission does not consider paint color.
MOTION: Baldridge moved to accept the consent agenda as recommended in the Commission's packet,
subject to the recommended conditions. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0
(Baker and McMahon absent).
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
ll Street.
i 728 Runde tre
Peterson said this application involves a remodeling project on a Moffitt house on Rundell Street. She showed a
photograph of the house as it is now.
Peterson said there was an attached garage on the left,but in the past it was remodeled into interior space,and that is
what is going to be remodeled in the new project,all the way back to the sliding door that would be replaced with a
new door. She said there would also be a different window arrangement.
's
Peterson referred to the plans,showing the existing floor plan and the proposal. She said the work will include new
1 siding and all new windows in one part of the house,and with the windows there are aluminum storms and also the
back door and the storm door at the back. Peterson said the windows are in slightly different locations and they are
r
slightly different sizes than what is there now.
Peterson said the packet contains examples of some other houses in the neighborhood. She said the main thing is
that when this is all done,the window that is in the center of the projecting gable will not be centered anymore;it
will be offset,because it works better with the interior plan. Peterson said there is a good example in the packet of a
1 similar house.
Peterson said staff recommends approval of this project.
Vincent,the owner of the house,said that this house is one of about 16 Moffitt houses in the Longfellow District and
about 16 two-story houses. He said that there was a comment made to him about the symmetry of the window
below on the left. Vincent said that of the other 16 houses,only three have any symmetry at all associated with the
Moffitt home.
i Vincent said the new window will be off center because of the closet window. He said the small window in the
I space of the house throws the center off. Vincent said that, in general,what he is doing is trying to get the windows
more appropriately sized. He said they are larger than the other windows in the house on the exterior.
I Peterson said the plans show how the proposal results in a better interior arrangement of the space. Vincent stated
i that the windows in every room of the original first floor of the house are centered. He said that in this case,the
1
1
I
i
i
3
1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 4 of 13
previous owner wanted to center the windows' exterior and violated the interior principle by moving the widow to
the side of the room so there is not even enough room for the casing.
Swaim asked if Vincent was discussing the two double windows. Vincent confirmed this. He said the original
garage opening was off center from that space. Vincent said he is centering the windows in the same way the garage
door would have been centered.
Baldridge said that because of that closet,there is a wall between those two windows. Vincent agreed. Wagner said
they end up being in the corner. Vincent said that is true.
Miklo said staff almost put this on the agenda as a consent item,but because the change is significant,felt the
Commission should see it. Trimble reminded the Commission that the interior of a building is not to be considered.
She said that because there was no standard way of building these distinctive Moffitt houses,she feels this change
would be more to the original design of the building.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 728 Rundell
Street,as presented in the application. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0
(Baker and McMahon absent).
814 Ronalds Street.
Peterson stated that this house is in the Brown Street Historic District. She showed the front of the house and a shed
off the alley. Peterson said the proposal is to put solar panels on the shed. She said that the shed and the house are
not close and showed a view of the shed from the house.
Peterson showed examples of the product that was sent to her. She showed two sketches of the proposed
arrangement of the panel. Peterson said the panels have to be sloped to face south,and the roof actually slopes to
the north,so that is why they are tilting that way.
Peterson showed the version with fifteen panels in rows of three and the other version with fourteen panels in two
rows high. She said she did not think the exact arrangement has been determined. Peterson said that one version did
not have as much height,and there may be other ordinances that restrict height. Eckstein,the owner of the house,
pointed out the version that she prefers.
Peterson said that all of the electrical and cabling is underground,and the equipment would be in the shed.
Eckstein said that with the panels, 80%of the electricity in the house would be served. Swaim said that the
Guidelines are not specific regarding solar panels, so this is something that will probably come before the
Commission more often. She said it is a good chance for the Commission to learn about it.
Baldridge asked if the whole thing be slid toward the alley. Moore,the contractor for this project,said that,
depending on the exact size of the panels that end up here,that is a definite possibility. He said there is one other
issue in that there is actually a utility pole on the corner of the shed,and he needs to keep clearance from that and
cannot go back too far.
Peterson said her recommendation is to approve the application with the condition that staff and chair approve the
final layout.
Miklo said the City really does not have guidelines to address things of this sort in historic districts or in other
residential districts. He said staff anticipates seeing more proposals of this sort,and the City is doing some research
on how to best address these. Miklo said that in non-historic districts,they have been handled as accessory uses,
which has not been altogether satisfactory. He said that some of these turn with the sun and have created some glare
problems and some complaints from neighbors.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 5 of 13
Miklo said it seems that,in an historic district,for new technology to be introduced like this,this is probably the best
place on this particular lot to do it. He said that is why staff recommends approval. Miklo said it is also of a scale
and size that will not be terribly noticeable.
Swaim asked if the visible surface of the panels will be a grayish white,like the shingles on the roof. Moore replied
that they will be dark.
Michaud asked if the panels would be adjustable at all. Moore responded that if there was a major issue,if it was
glaring directly at something,they would definitely consider moving it. He said it is meant to be permanent—that
the angle is placed to get maximum efficiency.
Eckstein said that there are a lot of large trees in the neighborhood. She said that this is almost the only spot within
a several block area where this would work. Eckstein said the neighbors are all quite shaded from this,although if it
became a problem for someone,they would figure out what to do to mitigate that.
MOTION: Litton moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 814 Ronalds
Street as presented in the application,subject to the condition that the applicant provide information on the
overall dimensions of the solar array,including height,for review and approval by the chair and staff.
Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0(Baker and McMahon absent).
500 Clark Street.
Peterson said this project involves the construction of a new front porch. She said the property backs up to
Longfellow School but is in the Clark Street Conservation District.
Peterson showed a view of the back half of the lot with the house in the background. She showed the porch,which
is only a few years old. Peterson added that the porch is not original but was added when the house was re-sided
and additions were made to the house. She showed a garage that the Commission approved a few years ago.
i it would be the same depth as what is there now but
Peterson showed sketches of the proposed porch. She said that two p
would be wider. Peterson said it would use the same sort of wood elements,with an asphalt roof,square corner
posts,and a horizontal skirt at the bottom.
Peterson said everything seems fine with the proposal,and the owner was present to answer questions. She said her
only recommended condition would be to get the typical final dimensions and product literature.
Peterson showed a picture of a house across the street on Clark Street that has similar detailing to what the owner
wants to do. She said she did find approval for parts of the project across the street but did not find Commission
approval for the porch.
Miklo stated that he believes the porch was approved but it was approved as painted material and then not
unfinished treated lumber. He said the approved proposal showed actual latticework versus the horizontal board.
Miklo said the project was therefore not carried out as approved,and there was an inspection problem there.
Peterson said that the packet includes pictures of an original,old porch on this house. She said the original porch
had a steeper roof. Peterson said the owner does not want turned columns and brackets,which is okay.
Swaim asked about the IPE wood. Clarke,the owner said that this IPE wood is very durable and that is why they
would like to use it. Peterson said it seems like it is a great alternative for the deck horizontal surfaces,but it does
not take paint,so that would be a problem in an historic district.
Michaud asked if it then has to be stained or sealed. Clarke replied that it is intended to be natural;it is that type of
wood. Michaud said she used fir on her deck and has to seal it every two years.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 6 of 13
Regarding the wood, Swaim asked how the Guidelines address this. Miklo responded that the guidelines require
that it be painted,except for the deck,which could be treated or stained. He said this is a good example of why the
guidelines have that standard,because people say they will paint it in six months,but it often doesn't get painted.
Swaim asked if treated wood is allowed. Peterson said it is allowed,and the recommendation is that it be left for six
months to a year for curing and then painted. She said her understanding is that the IPE would never be painted,
because it doesn't take paint or stain. Peterson said it would be great for the steps and the deck area. She said it is
not like treated wood and added that it can be used for the floor and the stair treads.
Baldridge said that he preferred the steeper roof pitch shown in the historic photo of the housue. Miklo said that
historic porches tend to have a lower pitch.He said the original porch on this house is quite unusual,and it would
not be odd to see a lower pitch roof,as being proposed,on a building of this sort. Trimble said she is comfortable
with the pitch of this roof for this reason.
MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 500 Clark
Street as presented in the application,with the condition that the applicant provide fmal detail drawings,
dimensions,and product information for review and approval by the chair and staff. Ackerson seconded the
{
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0(Baker and McMahon absent).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Peterson said there were two certificates of no material effect and two intermediate review certificates that she and
the chair looked at. There were no questions about the certificates.
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
Jefferson Street National Historic District.
Melrose National Historic District.
Miko said that at its last meeting,the Commission set its goals and objectives for the next year. He said that two
items that rose to the top were considering potential local historic districts where National Register historic districts
already exist.
Miklo said this is a concern of the Commission because of some of the recent developments in the City and the
awareness that the Red Avocado proposal has brought to development. He said there are only two National Register
Historic Districts that are not local districts: Jefferson Street and Melrose Avenue. Miklo said the question is
whether the Commission wants to initiate either one or both of these as local districts. He stated that both of these
will probably be controversial.
Regarding Jefferson Street,Miklo said that there very few homeowners in this area,although there are more
institutions,including the University,three or four churches, and several rental properties. He said it is unlike some
of the other districts where property owners have come forward to support the designation. Miklo said this will be a
district where community-wide support will be necessary to be successful to establish a local district.
Regarding the Melrose Avenue area,Miklo said that there are obviously advocates for this designation in the
neighborhood. He said there may be more support,but there is also some University-owned property and some
rental properties in the area.
Miklo said he would like to revisit Walker's concern about 711 Melrose after the Commission determines how it
wants to approach this. He said that with limited staffing,a lot of the work,including the community-relations
work,would need to be done by Commission members. Miklo said that hopefully Friends of Historic Preservation
will be able to contribute in terms of educating property owners,the Planning and Zoning Commission,and the City
Council regarding the value of creating local districts in these areas.
1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 7 of 13
Baldridge said that he is strongly in favor of both districts. Trimble said she believes both of these neighborhoods
are at a critical point right now. She said if the Commission doesn't try to designate districts here,properties will be
lost. Trimble suggested moving forward with both of them.
Miklo asked if the Commission wants to work on both districts simultaneously or wants to select one over the other
to try to designate first. He said they will each take hours of work on the part of commissioners. Miklo said there
are some zoning differences between the two areas. He said the Jefferson Street area has Mixed Use(MU)zoning
and some Public(P)zoning. Miklo said that anything owned by the University is exempt from the regulations,so
even if it is a local district,the Commission cannot control what happens with those properties.
Miklo said the Melrose District is in some ways better off,because much of it is zoned Low Density Single Family
s (RS-5),so there is not the threat of redevelopment. He added that the University also owns a lot of property in this
area. Miklo said that there is some property that will likely be proposed for demolition already by the University,
but the local designation will not prevent that from happening.
Trimble asked,if the Commission makes something a local district and then the University buys a property within
that district,does it then become exempt from the regulations. Miklo answered that the University is exempt from
local zoning regulations,even if the property is purchased after the area is made a district.
Miklo said that if federal funds are used for a property in a National Register district,then there has to be a section
106 review process. He said this involves exploring alternatives to avoid damage or minimize damage,or if it is
determined that a building will be removed,then there has to be mitigation.
Swaim agreed that both districts need to be tackled. Regarding Jefferson Street and it following so soon after
Washington Street,she said the public is probably more aware of this issue. Swaim said it can be presented as an
example of what preservation can do,and as citizens,the Commission is stepping forward. She asked for a
discussion of what is involved in the process and whether it pays for the Commission to do both at once or to create
a game plan to execute on one district and then the other.
Miklo said that both of these areas are National Register districts. He stated that the first step in designating a local
historic district would be a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission. Miklo said that before that
public hearing occurs,all property owners within the district and within 200 feet of the district are notified that the
property is being proposed for an historic district by the Commission. He said the time and date of the meeting is
announced,and interested parties;for,against,and neutral;are invited to speak and make a case for or against why
this should be a district.
Miklo said the Historic Preservation Commission then makes a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission,which has a similar process in which property owners are notified. He said it is a zoning decision at
that level. Miklo said the Historic Preservation Commission's decision is whether the area qualifies for a district
based on the Commission's criteria,which are basically the National Register criteria,so clearly,indications are that
these two areas meet the criteria.
Miklo said that the job of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to look at a potential district in relationship to the
Comprehensive Plan,including if these are areas where the Plan calls for preservation or redevelopment.He said
that if the Plan called for redevelopment in an area,it would be unlikely for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
recommend an historic district.
Miklo said the Planning and Zoning Commission then makes a recommendation to the City Council,and the City
Council considers both recommendations. He said that the City Council also holds a public hearing. At the City
Council level,Miklo stated that if owners of 20%of the property within the proposed district object to the
designation of their properties,it requires approval of six out of seven of the City Council members to designate a
district. He said that is a pretty high standard to meet,but it was done twice in the past: for the Carnegie Library
Building and also for the North Side Historic District.
1
1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 8 of 13
Regarding the 20%objection,Miklo said there is a petition form available. He said that the property owners are
made aware that they have the right to make this protest. Miklo said the form is notarized and submitted to the City
Clerk. He said that before the City Council votes,the protest signatures are tallied to see if 20%of the land area is
represented. Miklo added that property owners with 200 feet of the proposed district could also be part of a protest
petition.
Miklo said that some of the community relationship work that would be necessary to make this successful includes
meeting with the University and getting its support for one or both of these districts. He said the University owns
considerable property near both of these districts. Miklo said an important role is reaching out to some of the major
property owners with education and negotiations.
Swaim asked how much clout non-residents of the district have in making the argument that this is important for the
community. Miklo said he thinks Jefferson Street will be unique in that much of the support will probably come
from the larger community.
Miklo said that several of the churches in the Jefferson Street neighborhood are already local landmarks and under
the Commission's regulation already,including Saint Mary's and the Congregational Church. He said there is
therefore no reason for those churches to object.
Wagner said he agrees that the Commission really has to do something regarding getting local designation. Swaim
said that maybe some subcommittees could put together materials and talking points. She said that lots of times
when one needs to make an argument for a particular street or neighborhood,people have to see the images of the
houses before they are convinced. Swaim said that all of that would take some preparation.
Trimble said she thinks this is definitely the primary mission of the Friends of Historic Preservation. She said they
will be there to help as much as they can.
Miklo said there may be some benefit to doing both districts at the same time. Baldridge said he thinks they both are
inevitable. He said that to only focus on one might invite insult on the other. Baldridge said it might make sense to
pursue both,giving people the flexibility to put more effort wherever it is most needed.
Downing asked if it would be possible to hold public hearings for both districts at the same time and place. Miklo
said they could be held at the same time and place,although it might be better to have them different nights.
Walker said that in the Melrose Neighborhood,402 Myrtle Avenue is within the historic district,but it was torn
down last fall. She said the house was in bad condition,but the demolition did set a precedent.
Trimble said she wondered how critical the time element is with each district. Trimble said the University seems
very willing to take down properties in the Melrose neighborhood,but in the Jefferson area,it seems like this is a
point where some of the buildings that are critical to Iowa City history could be lost.
Michaud said that public opinion is on the Commission's side,so this should be acted upon as soon as possible. She
asked about the public meetings. Miklo said that a quorum of the Commission would be necessary for a vote,and as
many commissioners as possible should attend the public hearings.
i Miklo suggested that perhaps a subcommittee should be formed to do some of the background work on this. Swaim
I volunteered to be on a subcommittee,and Michaud volunteered to work on a Jefferson Street subcommittee.
1 Miklo said the hard work is the preparation beforehand and then the actual meeting. He said the designation
involves a four to five month process,because it also goes through the zoning process,which takes three months
I itself.
Walker said that the Melrose District is under tremendous pressure from The University of Iowa. She said that if it
s is known that the Commission is proceeding and that this is a worthwhile thing to do,it sends a message to the
community at large and the University that the City thinks the area is worth preserving. Walker said that in 1992,
1
i
i
I
i
I
1
I
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 9 of 13
the City stated that it should be supportive of supporting this against the encroachment of The University of Iowa,so
it has been discussed for 20 years,with the neighbors being the ones who fought for National Register designation.
Swaim said that if the Commission wanted to take both districts on at the same time,and then the subcommittee
steps up the work,the talking points could be customized for each neighborhood. She said that then perhaps
different people could be in charge of the Jefferson Street area and the Melrose Avenue area,because different
approaches might work better with each.
Walker asked if those subcommittee meetings would be open to the public to sit in. Peterson said they could be
open to the public and said that Walker's input could be extremely helpful. Swaim said she would envision a
subcommittee of Commission members,Friends of Historic Preservation members,and invested owners.
The consensus of the Commission was to at least get the work started on both districts at the same time. Trimble
asked,if this process is started but doesn't move forward fast enough,it is possible that buildings could be
demolished. Miklo said that is always the case. He said that whatever is done in terms of designating local districts,
it will have no effect on University-owned properties. Miklo said it needs to be clear that this is not going to prevent
the University from demolishing properties that it owns on either street.
Swaim,Litton,Michaud,Thomann,and Wagner volunteered to work on the subcommittee,and Trimble also
volunteered to be a member in her capacity as a member of Friends of Historic Preservation. Michaud asked Walker
if she could provide the subcommittee with her contact information for people in the Melrose Neighborhood.
Miklo said he is involved in the City's review of the vacation of the street right-of-way that the University has
applied for that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed last week. He said the University is proposing a
parking lot on properties he specified on a map. Miklo said that as part of building the Children's Hospital,at least
one of the parking structures there would be taken down to make room for that hospital. He said the University is
doing all sorts of things to make up for that parking,because the University needs it to function.
Miklo showed an aerial photograph,pointing out the National Register Historic District western boundary. He
showed where the parking lot would be located. Miklo said the parking lot would be entered off Melrose Place;
$ because of very serious traffic safety concerns,the City does not want all the traffic coming and going off Melrose
Place. He said that a considerable amount of traffic comes off of Hawkins Drive,and having an intersection that
close is a dangerous situation,and the City does not want 300 cars that the University would have in that lot to come
back out at that intersection.
Miklo said there needs to be another way out. He showed the location of the University's initial proposal for a
driveway. Miklo said the parking lot is being designed so that there is only one way in,so there needs to be another
way out. He said the University was negotiating with the owner of 727 Melrose for enough room to put the exit
onto Melrose Avenue. Miklo said those negotiations broke down,and the only way for the University to fit a
second driveway on the parking lot,which staff feels is a safety issue,is to take down 711 Melrose,which is a
contributing structure.
Miklo said that he is both a community planner and a preservation planner,and with regard to this issue he feels the
Commission needs to pick its battles in terms of if it wants to go on record for this particular property. He said it is
a contributing property but not a key property.
Miklo said that,from the planning staff's point of view,there is going to be a major parking lot in this area. He said
that it is necessary for a major initiative of the University's several million dollar investment in the hospital
complex. Miklo said that for that parking lot to function successfully,staff feels there needs to be a driveway that is
separated from Hawkins Drive. He said that 711 Melrose is in the way.
Miklo asked if this one building is worth the battle. He advised the Commission to focus on the larger historic
g � g
district,the houses that are representative of the key structures,the Italianates that were built along Melrose Avenue
when this was an early settlement,and the 1920s houses that are key to the character of the district. Miklo said that
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 10 of 13
the University can demolish the house,but the Commission is being asked to send a letter to the University to
preserve the house.
Walker discussed 711 Melrose,as Miklo showed a photograph of it. Walker said it is a wonderfully preserved
example of a vernacular house known as the front gable roof form. She said the carriage barn is a well-preserved
example of a two-story barn and the only example in the district.
Walker stated that in August of last year,the University called together the neighborhood to tell the neighbors of the
plans for the Children's Hospital. She said the University explained the new building and said it would not affect
the neighborhood in any way,shape or form. Walker said that on December 1st,neighbors received an e-mail from
the University saying that it wanted to discuss another development in the plan. She said that at that meeting the
neighbors were informed that the University planned to buy two properties on Melrose Place and put a parking lot in
1 the area. Walker said that left the neighbors between Monday and Thursday to get something together to send to the
Regents,which they did.
Walker said the neighbors were told that the parking lot would be temporary. She said the Regents were told that
the lot would hold approximately 250 cars and that no building in the historic district would be affected.
Walker said it has come to this point that the parking lot is to be permanent and will hold 300 cars,and the
University will demolish something in the process. She said the University actually does not need the vacation in
order to building a parking lot. Walker said the University wants the vacation,because that will enable the parking
lot to hold an extra 50 cars. She said the City's Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the vacation
be granted to the University,because if it were not,the City will not be able to ask that the University follow some
of the City's requirements when it is not the University,such as having trees every so many parking spaces and
asking for landscaping along the side.
Walker said that this is so heavily weighted against the neighborhood. She said that because the neighbors were
only told about this a few days before it went to the Board of Regents,there was not time to come up with an
alternative plan for the parking that is needed.
1 Walker said the neighbors had come up with an idea to suggest building a parking ramp on one of the University's
surface lots. She said the University's argument against building a ramp is that it is too expensive. Walker said that
, once again this comes down to expense versus destroying a neighborhood.
,
,
Miklo said this is also a timing issue. He said that in order to keep the project on schedule,the University needs to
get started on a lot. Miklo showed the houses that are coming down for the parking lot itself.
Miklo suggested the Commission consider the historic district as a whole. He said that the key structures,the ones
that define the district,are those great 1920s houses that represent the development of the neighborhood and the old
farmhouses that were built on Melrose Avenue when it was a rural road. Miklo said they have obviously been kept
in great condition and are key structures worth fighting for. In terms of having the Commission pick its battles,he
said that possibly there could be some negotiation with the University by saying that the Commission would not
object to this but would look for the University's support with regard to the larger historic district part of these.
Miklo said there is going to be a large parking lot here. He stated that the quality of this house in terms of ever
; being a long-term residence is pretty questionable given its location in relationship to the lareg parking lot and in
i
1 relationship to the larger neighborhood.
1 Walker stated that the University came out with its new Comprehensive Plan,which it brought before the Regents '
recently. She said that starting about where 727 Melrose is and going all the way down and including the Italianate
1
1 1870s house,there were three large buildings that were labeled medical campus. Walker said the University was
Iasked what that was about and said that it was a mistake on the part of the illustrator.
Walker said she realizes that the key properties are the most important,but if one starts picking away at the houses,
from the Italianate house to 741 Melrose,none of those are key properties,so the University could have a large
1
i
,
1
i
i
i
1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 11 of 13
building there. She said the University was asked by the Planning and Zoning Commission if there would be a
building in the future where that parking lot is,and it was not categorically stated that there will not be a building
there.
Walker said she does not have the answer to this. She said she is coming before the Commission to see what help
the Commission can offer,as part of preserving the Historic District that is the neighborhood itself.
Walker said the neighbors realize that the houses on Melrose Place are not in good shape and have expected that
there might be a modest parking lot in that area. She said the neighbors did not anticipate this huge parking lot and
now the destruction of this historic house.
Walker said that west of Melrose Place,except for the brick house at 741 Melrose,which the University owns,
except for one house that is from the 1870s and is not in very good shape,the rest of that is not deemed worthy to be
in the historic district by Marlys Svendsen.
Walker said the neighbors had anticipated that the University might use from Melrose Place west but not in the
historic district. She said this sets a precedent. Walker said this is the University taking down the first house in the
historic district.
Swaim said she feels that the Commission is not going to stop the University from tearing down 711 Melrose. She
asked if it is in the Commission's best interests,in terms of future efforts for that neighborhood,to send a letter
asking to have the property left alone or is it in the Commission's best interests to put its energies into the larger
neighborhood as an historic district. Swaim said part of that question also involves the tradeoff of not objecting to
losing 711 Melrose but asking for the University's support in making this a district.
I
Miklo said such a letter might be more appropriate coming from the neighborhood. He said the letter could
negotiate some support for the area to the east,which the University has said it has no interest in. Miklo said the
neighbors could ask the University to put that on display by supporting a local district.
Walker said she would take that suggestion back before the executive committee for the neighborhood. She said,
however,that at some point,the neighbors had planned to go before City Council and ask them to make a statement
reiterating what is in the Southwest District Plan to emphasize that this is a neighborhood that is worth preserving.
Trimble said she does not like the idea of the University taking down 711 Melrose at all. She said the Commission
is probably not going to be able to stop it. Trimble asked if it would be possible to draft a letter saying the
Commission is looking at making this National Register area a local district,and this includes properties the
University is planning to take down,such at 711 Melrose. Trimble said she agrees that the Commission doesn't
want to burn its political capital so that the University is the main objector to the neighborhood because it has 20%
of the property. She said that would automatically make this more difficult in that it would require a supermajority
vote.
,
Walker said the University keeps saying that it is for and supports historic preservation. She said that even if this is
a local district,the University can do anything it wants to. Walker said that except for a little PR,the University has
nothing to lose.
Miklo put up a map showing the key structures. He said they are in a pattern along Melrose and then in a cluster on
€€ Melrose Place.
Walker said that she would like someone on the City's side to say that they don't like this. She said it should not
I just go unnoticed,because it creates a precedent.
s
1 Miklo asked what can be done in terms of the rest of the neighborhood to use this as an argument that if 711 Melrose
goes,there is a more important, intact neighborhood to the east.
i
5
I
l
I
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 12 of 13
Walker asked if there would be any thought to asking the University to relocate that house within the district. Miklo
asked if there are any vacant lots.
i
Swaim suggested asking the University to do something that is actually likely to get done. She said she did not see
the University as likely to move a house that it does not see value in to begin with. Swaim agreed there is a more
important issue here. She said she would like to get something out of losing this house that would benefit the
creation of a local district. Swaim said the point about speaking up is valid. She suggested the Commission draft a
letter expressing its concern about losing individual houses,because it erodes the neighborhood feeling.
Thomann agreed that in this situation the Commission should use this as a bargaining chip. She said that a letter to
the University would have an impact that shows the Commission is paying attention.
Trimble said it also lets the University know that the Commission would like this to be designated a local district
and that many of the houses right near the development would be in that district. Swaim volunteered to draft a letter
to be sent to the University regarding this issue.
Walker said that would be very helpful. She said it also tells the University that the entities in Iowa City take notice
when an historic building is in jeopardy.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
1 Trimble announced that this would be her last meeting. She said she has taken Helen Burford's position with
Friends of Historic Preservation. Trimble said the City Attorney feels this would be a conflict of interest with her
Commission membership,so she has submitted her resignation.
MOTION: Wagner moved to nominate Swaim as Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Ackerson
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0(Baker and McMahon absent).
MOTION: Swaim moved to nominate Litton as Vice Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Wagner
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0(Baker and McMahon absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 9,2012:
MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's March 9,2012
meeting,as written,with the correction of the spelling of Saint Thomas More,as corrected by Swaim. Ackerson
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0(Baker and McMahon absent).
ADJOURNMENT:
1 The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
1
I
i
1
a
1
i
i
i
1
1
}
1
i
M
r
5
1 . .
1
co
1-
i
a
N
O
n '
co
y-
Cis
OD
03
N
e-
ti
h1
CO to
V
1' X X 0 X X 0 X X X X X
0
W G N
LW M X X X 0 X X X X 0 X 0
C.) a
E2 X o o X X 0 X 0 X X X
1 CO
_ 1- X X X X X X X X X
i
a
X co 't N CO d' N N CO N
W ..- ‘.- r- r- r- N- N-
rn rn a a O) -a a 'a rn a E
N N N N N N N N N N N 2
ce M M M M M M M M M M M O
F- -0 O
N O
jZ
X 0.0
Q .7 N D
H F c " C O2
_ Y a� co
O
W W 71.1
I J W W
Z
Z 0JD Z
F- N Z o J o 4 m aa
Z
z ui . wm II il oz Z a Q XOOZ I
W Z Q O o CD z W d
re Ed _
W W C W
0 _ E CO Z w
Q V -J Q O V 0 2 <
z a m m o =1 2 Z Cl) 1- i~