HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, April 27, 2006
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
3. I terns of Consideration
A. Certificate of Appropriateness:
1. 520 Grant Street
2. 621 S. Summit Street
3. 112 E. Court Street
B. Minutes for Apri113, 2006 meeting
4. Discussion of Tornado Recovery
5. Other
5. Adjourn
Staff Report
April 21, 2006
Historic Review for 520 Grant Street - Memo
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
In a previous meeting, the Commission tabled this application to allow the applicant to consider alternative design for
the proposed porch. Staff suggested porch design based on a house illustration from Sears, Roebuck House Catalog is
attached herewith. The applicant has not made a final decision, and is considering the alternatives. The application
also included proposal to replacement of existing synthetic siding with fiber cement board siding.
The staff report for the application is also included below.
The applicant, Ben Lewis, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration and an addition on the house located at 520
Grant Street, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The applicants intend to replace the existing
aluminum siding with fiber cement board siding. The proposal also includes addition of a seven and half foot wide
front porch along the length of the front fa<;:ade of the house.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.5 Siding; and
5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Addition
Staff Comments
This house was built in 1939 and generally fits into the category of Cape Cod within the Late 19th/Early 20th Century
Colonial Revival architectural style. This house was one of the popular styles in 1930s and this house plan could be
based on one of the mail order catalogs.
The applicant intends to build a front porch extending across the front of the house. Typically the Cape Cod style
houses do not have front porches and if one is designed with a porch, the porch is part of the overall mass. It is very
common to build additions on the side and rear rather that the front fa<;:ade, to maintain the symmetrical arrangement
of the fa<;:ade that is generally found on such houses. The Sears mail order catalog contains some similar house plans
which have a central porch with a square footprint and steep roofs to match with the roof pitch of the house. In
staff's view, a similar porch would be more appropriate on this house.
The existing aluminum siding on the house has suffered damage from a hailstorm. The applicant is removing it to side
the house with fiber cement board to match the original siding of the house.
Staff recommends approval to the siding replacement project and deferral of the porch addition to allow
consideration of a design which is more appropriate for a Cape Cod style house.
v
o
Porch floor plan: 520 Grant
house
porch
+00
Istepsl3'
6'
32'
5
L
~
~
Ii
I ! I
I: II
-
" .J,..".-
.,~
"'--"":'..~'f'
.'-----.j
Application for Historic ReVIew
Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties
located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City
Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of
the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at
www.icgov.orgIHPhandbook.
Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month.
During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday.
Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior
to the meeting.
Applicant Information
(Please check primary contact person)
JL. Owner .I:!(..IJ:!.....~~l.~i!.9.....&.,..~.N:t.t..~......
Phone .....3..1..?:r..~.~..~.~...(g)..........3...1.'J..~.1'.,.~..~...{~)
Address ....<t?.*.l.......~::.~~.~.~.t.t.:......r.t..........~..~: Co
.................~..~.~....,(~f.y...!......:;!.;;,.~~....~'?:.~..~.~......
email...........:::::...............................................................................
Q Contractor ....~~..~.P..;..~.~....~.::-!..~.~~.~?!.~~
Address ....~...f..!:.~.r.?:..I.r.~...~:!!.~~.~.~.....g".'!'!iJ...
......................~..td.~....~.!~......;?":"!.~..........................
Phone .........3..s.J....~...~..~.................................................
email .......................~=.. ................................................................
1J f\
Q Consultant .......... .....................................................................
Address... ...... ... ..................... ............................... ................. .........
.........................................................................................................
Phone ...... ......................................................... .................... ..........
.........................................................................................................
email...............................................................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
~ Site plan
Q Floor plans
Q Building elevations
Q Photographs
Q Product information
Q Other ............................................................................
If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or
a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a
site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs.
If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure,
please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently
describe the scope of the project.
Provide a written description of the proposed project on the
second page of this application.
For Staff Use: .
Date submitted ../!.:::..U.~.%.........................
Q Certificate of No Material Effect
Q Certificate of Appropriateness
Q Major review
Q Intermediate review
Q Minor review
Property Information
Address of property ......ft!..l!......?..~....!.~.~.':.JL?::...:f..:..~.........
...................................~:~..~.~...~~.~...............................................
Use of property ....g!..$../I.~~..~.~............................................
Date constructed (if known) ........!...~.'!.$......................................
,R,~",- .oI;./.J / ~J.-o
Historic Designation
Q This property is a local historic landmark
OR
Q This property is located in the:
Q Brown Street Historic District
Q College Green Historic District
Q East College Street Historic District
Q Longfellow Historic District
Jii( Summit Street Historic District
Q Woodlawn Historic District
Q Clark Street Conservation District
Q College Hill Conservation District
Q Dearborn Street Conservation District
Q Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
7 Q Contributing
Q Noncontributing
Q Nonhistoric
Project Type
Q Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window
replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new
decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar)
)it Addition to an exijJ:ing building (in)iludes decks and ramps)
AI.)I>IT1o,J9F g..-...: y",...ia l'N-?JcJ~+"- ""'~"~.ICJ R€.JtA.c/.J
Q Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch,
chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) p~*",....rlltJl. S-rQ~
Q Construction of new building "'.,.. ,."JiIiit: -; wt5)e.Lj_~
Q Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
Q Other
L.I fIJ IJA
Project description
...............~!1...c.........~~.~.~.~.....O.~..fi.:.?>........~..~~..g.....1.!..~..~.~.f..q,.~..?Yf.....~.??~......(f;?~.~'f:-d.....................................
.~...!f;&.!..i.:S..E.""''''?,,(~'''Y.:....~..:!:!~'P};!Z';;;-#::#1;;;;;..tfti;;''.i.~.~J.m.m"
.......gg,~.~~.!.~..~....I:i..l~.~..~~..!..!:......!:.n:!.................~./).!:.~f!'I\~.~.....':"..~........~tt#......~..'... ..........................................................
.....1:..~.......~.~:':f....~..~..-€:..(~.~.~..~.,,).....u:....e~~.~.~.€...!l~~.~....~....1l.'IfX~.!f.!1..~...~.~.e.....~..':!.~.......................
.....I../.f:.r:...(t.~..N,..{..7.:?. ...~..~. ....~.~..~.::!:;$.... .......... .......... .................. .:.. .................... ........ ......................... ... .......... ................ ................ .... ... ..........
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............H.".~~...tft..';;.~.~......~!!!:.-:r......:n......~.~.~..~1.'.7:.~...~~.~.~.~~....E:.~.#tr(....~~.~..~..~....~.~.~!..~.~...............
.......e~f!r.f:.~....~...~.I!:::::....~.1a."...(Jift..~:?l:(.....~.r:.....~..~.~~....f~.~;r)..H~..~..~.~....~:!..~...............................
........~~.~.~.~!-::....!:.:~.~.e.~~..........................................................................................................................:.......................................................
........................................................................~...................................................... ...................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Materials to be used
..........~.1.f...R.-o.$.n.......-:t!f..~..~...~.~?::.'E.........~.r..~....fl.'"::.!..~..~...If.:!..(.~.....n.....~.~~.Irt......fe!.~.~......................
.......~J~....R......f{.I::.!..~~....~..~.~......~~....H-.~.!f.:~.T.},-~....~.,.~~.~.....&.~.f;dd....(~..Q..9j...........................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................'..........................................................................................................
Exterior appearance changes
.......~..'!i.~..~~.y........~~..~...~......~.!.f..'!!...~..~.f...~.~..g,...if:t!..~~.f?.....t.!..~.~...~.~..q..~.'!'J...~~~....................
..UJli.r::rJ.....~.~~.~.9.....!::(f!.J..~..~y...f!.~....f:!.~.::.J.~.g....r~~....t..~ff.;)C.~A......~.'1..~..~.....k~-:r::................
....1.J......~.~....-:...~~..r.{..~.....~~~...~,u...B."'....~:r:.....~.~.~:~..~....~.~r..~....e;.E..r.:~.....tr~M:E.!.~=........
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............,......................,..........,...........................,........'.....................................................................................................................
ppdadm/HP HandbookfApp.p65
"" ~
1;7 /"\ 0 I ( )"1-1::J 1;7 /"\ 0 I Vl
<to "-
M .--.
>'- ~ L-L- II
..l ::3 :3 c::Ll S ..lIHHnS H..lnDS 129 "" M = W -q-'
z W ---" '--.
~ 8 L::J <I:
DI..l\7d ~3..l\7/"\^S: SNOISI^3<>l 'ON <to <I: U .--.
3..l'QIQ g; ~ CL Vl
W
"
'"
","
Z'"
::lu
Co
!l!"'
~; If II
~
I
'"
<!
0.
U
'-
<!
W
f-
<!
:~f3
,-wW
~ .[!j
l:)~t.:J
OO<!
00, .
NO.
, ~X
"''''w
"'~
W..J
>~
",,,,
"-...
W
",,,,
'lw
"'w
.."
c
I
o
"
"-
"-
...I
...I
0;
:>
1l
z
..
'"
C
C
:>
~
...I
...I
W
:>
:>
C
i!l
:>
":!'l
.,
~
1u
::::
OW
ol-~
..I ..-l~
i~~
1100
U'"
U "-
zw>-
~5~
>-oo<!
'"
w
00
"'[;1
~Cu
f-,
oo~
~...
'"
! ;\.}~j'~:,
~j;(l~l):t,<. ,-.
";f{~;~(.~,,~;;j." ..-n-
'.:{I;\V~
m
...
w"'
..JC
!ill:
",=>
"
~'"
",u
iii
~~
C\J
--..J
4:
f--
W
q
--..J
4'
f--
W
q
"'
w
>
;~
I-'~
~lli
0.",
~E'
..
u
iJ
~~
1111
Staff Report
April 21, 2006
Historic Review for 621 S. Summit
District: Summit Street Historic District
Classification: Contributing
The applicants, William and Linda Bywater, are requesting approval for a proposed addition at the back of the house
located at 621 South Summit Street, a contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. The applicants
intend to construct a concrete patio/ deck measuring approximately 27 feet x 18 feet, at the back of the house on the
south-west side. The proposal also includes reconstruction of a landing and steps for the rear entry and installation of
a cast, concrete railing on the west side of the stairs.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.5 Siding; and
5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Addition
Staff Comments
This house was built in 1930s with N eo-Classical style within the Late 19th/Early 20th Century Colonial Revival
architectural style. This house has a symmetrical five-bay front fac;:ade with a two-storey semi-circular monumental
portico.
The applicant intends to build a patio/deck at the back of the house, with poured cement concrete, and reconstruct
the rear stairs and install a concrete railing. Staff recommends using a similar railing as that on the front portico, that is
evident from the survey photographs (attached). The railing proposed has a comparatively large spindle size than
those found on a typical neo-classical house.
Staff recommends approval provided that a railing with appropriate style is used.
11. currem runctlon~s)
u.L11'::j.Lt:: UI/Vt::.L.L.L.l i'::j
12. Owner
Address
l'hr; !=:+-n~pr T .nf+-ll!=: IV Si'lrrl S; rnrl
621 S. unmit
(Sketch Map)
V..Ln.
Phone #
City/State Iowa City, Iowa ZIP 52240
LONGFELLOW SURVEY AREA
^
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Roll/Frame --.1L/ ~ Photographer
, I View Lookinq West
I Locati~n o~ Negatives: S . H. S. I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Integrity Notes)
N
....<::1~:~::~;;.~~;:1~i.~.,~ . [D 811
'~1I/"1[J~'~f.{" :\~>. --j
.~~~:;;~~~~/.\. ~~~~~ ('Il';~ I
,. :'\'I~~t1~\l'. ;...... .' I
:')'::.::i:':,~.'.' ' . ~~i
.,.~l~ . ~ ' .",.. 'F::
j ~::~*:<!/ :-~ ~"~ \' . z.~.., . -r;;;,
" ..-, . ~ ------.
~.. . ,;: ' ., ~~ [;J rJl
'\ .~~..~ '&j
---- \4i. {{. ":j c
, ~11" rrc~p~ r [~~:. W
'&!.~
Schultes
:'!: !iI-
:;?
04/17/2005 11:05
3133555217
'-'
IC PLANNING/JCCOG
PAGE 01/03
Application for Historic Review
Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties
loated 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 loWCI City His(oric Preservation
Handbook. whkh is available in the PCD office at City Hall or onUM at
www.icgov.org/HPhandbook.
Meeting sC:hedule: The HPC meets the second Thursda.y of each month.
During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday.
Applications are due in the peD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior
to the meeting.
For Staff Use: . I 01R
Date submitted ...-~4:/J.'{I""""''''''''''''''
1:1 Certiflcate of No Material Effect
)i( Certificate of Appropriateness
VMajor review
o Intermediate review
CJ Minor review
Applicant Information
(Please check primary contaAperson) \ .
IJ Own.' ,0Qh!)...",:.ts~~~~..~~J=, )
Phone ..2.?.1j.J..::.Q..9.3.~l~F}.1....~:.:.U.kl..tIM;!f.~
Address ..U.J2::..e-~,,,,,'Q.'~~""k.6t.:(........................
~~..~....~.\........... ....I.......J..................~k::?~..Q.
e="..............."\.;f3 . ri",fi:pfGL;>F,m
o Contractor .::'lJ.u.~.~....h~.v.v.l..C~...,..............................
Address ..t.\Jl.:...~.......L.oM..v::.:r...&.........................
~......~~.......... ..~.......I..k:....5..::k:?-:::i..~.......
Phone .2J.Y../.::::o..9:i.. ..,.... .......... ................. ..........................
email...............................................................................................
CJ Consultant ..~.~er~~..~~~An.~~.~h.9.J~....
Address .5CD..6).J)...~~9...... .....5~..~...........................
...............tE?S0:......................:.. ........I..lft.......2.'?:.3.W
Phone .2?b.l..:.Q...5..f?~..... ....t;..4..:~.:::....~..a(.g.'j
email...............................................................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
1:1 Site plan
o Floor plans
'Jif' Building elevations
1:1 Photographs
1:1 Product information
D Other ............................................................................
If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structur~ or
a significant alteration to an existing structure. please submit a
sit~ plan, floor plans. building elev:ltions :lnd photographs.
If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure.
please provide drawings and photographs to suffiCiently
describe the sc;ope of the project.
Provide a written description of the proposed project on the
second page of this appl1c:ation.
Property Information
Address of property .....1.U.6...~.....02.~~.~t.....6.t...:
Ie:&v.h......C.~~....1.JB..........2..:~.~:f...Q.......
Use of property .....v::e...~..L~.~.....................................
Date constl"ucted (if known) .....m..........................-......-...................
Historic Designation
Cl This property is a local historic landmark
Oft
Cl This property is located in the:
o Brown Street Historic District
o College Gr~en Historic DistrIct
D East College Street Historic District
,t Longfellow Historic District
o Summit Street Historic: Dlstrlc:t
Cl Woodlawn Historic District
Cl Clark Street Conservation DIstrict
1:1 College Hill Conservation District
o Dearborn Street Conservation District
Cl l.ucas-Governor Street Conservation District
Within the district. this property is claSSified as:
~ Contributing
o Noncontributing
D Nonhlstorlc
Project Type
o Alteration of an existing building (Ie_ sIding and window
replacement. skylights, window opening alterations. new
decks. porch r~construction. baluster repair or similar)
)( Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps)
D Del'l'1olitir.m of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch.
chimneys, decorative trim. baluster or similar)
o Construction of new building
CJ P.ep~'r or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
Q Other
04/17/2006
11: 05
3133565217
Ie PLANNING/Jr~OG
PAGE
02/03
'-
Project description
~=:1~~~:::~~==~~::~::::=:~:~:::=~::=::::~::::~:~:[.=::::=:
u.... n~'... p' .....u ....... ........... ..... .......... ..~. ~__............... ...........,. H P.... un... n-......... u,,,.. ........................... n'. '" on..'. ....... ....... ......... ..........u......... 00....... n.. ....... tn.-.. ".___u..... hu
..n" .____...... ............................. nH'" u.......... at.......... It,... un. o. ".nn '_..0...... ........ IOU' ............... n.. or.............. n... n .u........ U' on............ ...... ..... ........ ........ n__.. _..._ ......... uu....
.. ..... ...,................. .......00.11. II ...... It PO ....._............... .......... ........n.. ...,.... .t........... ....... ....... ........ "' n..'... ....... n... ,____,_.. .n...... ........................, .......... I........ r~... ..~....~ n... ..u U u....
.. nn'.' _ ......... ...u........... .00..... ....... ....~... .uu..... u..... In............... n~... .n.. n. U...... H....U........ ........................... ........ .....U' ............... ......... ...... ...... ..... ....... ........ ,...... ..... .....
... ....... unH.............U. IO........ ........ n..... n'.U" ..................... ............... ..... ....... ....... .......................... ................ n.....n.... ....~.... n. .... .u_..' .a.............................. ................
... ...... ...~. ..n... ....................... It n......... .......... ........U............ II... ."........... n....... ,.......... It......... ...... U...... ....... .......... .... II............... r..........., ,....... ,nU.. ...... n.......... .........
.... ...... _.... ........ ............... ............... n..... n....... .......... u. ....... 01'............... 0........ ....., ..~.... __....... _. ........ n....... ....................... ........ ...... ............ .......... .n.... ._. n nnn. n.'" ......
..............__.._...............................................................................................................................00......_....................................,...........,..................................n........
.. ... I_ ...... UU...................... uu..... ..... ........ ...~"" UU... u..............,..................................n.- ..... ..0.. t. ..n... .u.. 0 l... u.................................. n. n............ ....... ...........0... nn.. ._t.
.. ................................. ~ ~ ~........... .......0...... ................... ...... ........ ..f ~...... ........................ ........ .... ... ... .... ..... .......... r..... ....+.,. \~.. "I....'"...... f....... ...
f........... .... ........... .... ......... ...~~..... ,........ .... ......... ............... ........... .................. .......~. ~.. .t................. ...... ....... ....................... .... ........... .....
......................................................,.....................................................................................................+.............................................................
Materials to ~ used
W O<:9d- ~\A;'L-\.~
.:...........;.J.....;;..---.......;~.~.~........~;.l......."'..............:......J.....~-~J:.\=................~~.......:f;...:"\~::~..:...................
.W.c2...........................C......................,........12.........................~.\l.e;.Je.-....h___..........__........~..........................................................................
tk.k\.....d0.,..~r:\U~.It.!!Y.\~.S..:....._...:r................:j:;.............Jeh...............+..
r.:Ju4.:1....&.l~.i&~....._.....a!1;f.~Iu,M!I.1g~.Bi9.~..~~."T:..........~......._........~12.$1fhj
..Q..~.C......S;g~:?.:..Sk~.....__....~..I.__.........._..........O.r.:.X~:~I~;~......Q.\y.~..~.....................................................
... ......................... ........,........ .............. ..... ......... n........." n.,.".. .on.. too... .............. ..n. u'. t... ...+0.... ... ....~... + .".00..... u..... u..... ....... t.... u. _.H........ ........ ....... ...... ...uu........u.... u.
. ....... ......... ........ ...................._.....~........ ................ .... ..... .................. ................. ..... ........ ....... ... ........ n.... .......... ......... ..... .................. ... .....
.............. .... ............ .... ............ ..... ........ ...... ......+.......+..., .... ........+f+. ~.... ...........~.+...f '.'" ..++, .... "0.." .................. ............. .................. ........... ..... ............
l~~;~~e;r..~~.~:q,f_'{2Q.fch.Lh1\~~_~J...._.....................
...................................,.....u..........................................,..........................................................,.......,........,.....,........,.................................................................
......... ........ ...n... ...~.. .~n~..." ........, ._...""' _..~... no u.. ..~U.. ..'n. .___..n ..~... .nu nn.... .....,. .n_... n... n....' ...... ......... ,... H........ .............. ....... ...................... .................. ................
.. .... ............ ............ p... ........................ ,............_..... ....~....~......... ....... ............... ........ ................... ... .. .......".... ... ..... .............. ........................n ..... ...........
....... ............... .................. .............. ........"......... ............... ...... ......... ....... ........ ............... .... ................ ......... .... ............. ............ t.....~I.........
ppd~dmlHP 1-l~~clbooklApp.p65
~
I
V
o
...--- - --
~,
.. -~.
_-=_- .~ ~ .-.l~~t~'{,
~
v
'"
"0
I!
'"
CD
o
o
N
~
o
.r.
III
0;::
-c
c:
<(
c:
o
III
.....
<1l
E
w
g
('I')
II
<1l
CO
u
V)
c:
o
0':;
'6
-c
<(
...,
.....
l\l
.r.
Qi
E
E
::l
ex:
('f)
II
~
:r:
Cl
.~
~
Staff Report
April 21, 2006
Historic Review for 1112 E. Court
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
The applicant, John Rummelhart, is requesting approval for a proposed addition at the back of the house, located at
1112 East Court Street. The property is listed as a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The
applicants intend to construct an addition to the existing porch on the north side of the house. The proposed addition
will increase the existing enclosed rear entry porch by approximately 6 feet x 10.5 feet. The proposal intends to
construct a low-pitch hip roof for the proposed addition and construct a wood stairs.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.5 Siding; and
5.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Addition
Staff Comments
This house was built in 1914 with the influence of Prairie style within the Late 19th/Early 20th Century American
architectural style. The construction date for the back porch is not known but is compatible with the overall design of
the house.
The applicant intends to expand the existing porch/three-season room using wood or cement board siding and trim.
The existing porch has a vertical wood siding and brick faced column supports for the deck and concrete stairs. The
applicant proposes to reconstruct the brick faced posts with the expanded footprint to match the existing, however,
intends to construct wood stairs with a landing. In staffs view, a concrete stair will be more appropriate on this brick
house.
The proposal shows high-sill windows (style not mentioned in the application) on the east and west fac;ades and
double hung windows on the north fac;ade with the proportions and size to match a window on the north fac;ade of
the house.
Staff recommends approval.
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2006
EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Jim Ponto,
Mae Schatteman, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Justin Pardekooper
STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar
OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Connie Champion, Ann Freerks, Russ Garrett, Matthew Lage,
Mark McCallum, Michael McLaughlin, Sarah Richardson, Robert Warner
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF THE BUILDING AT 335 SOUTH CLINTON STREET AS
A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK:
Terdalkar stated that the Commission is considering the nomination for the building at 335 South Clinton.
He said the nomination is not for the property but only for the building. Terdalkar said the building is to be
moved to 819 East College Street to avoid demolition and the landmark designation will help this effort.
He said that, depending on how the Commission's votes tonight, this could go forward to the Planning
and Zoning Commission for the overlay zoning and eventually the City Council will consider the
nomination for landmark status.
Terdalkar referred to the nomination form and said that the nomination was initiated by citizens in the
community. He said that there is an interested party who would like to move the house to another location
and applied for a certificate of appropriateness. Terdalkar said there is an issue regarding the front porch,
to be considered in detail before the nomination for landmark designation and the certificate for moving
the house to 819 E College site is approved. He said that the applicant is proposing not to reconstruct the
porch when the house is moved to the College Street site, as it is not feasible because of the lot
restrictions. Terdalkar said the lot is only 50 feet wide.
Mark McCallum, the applicant, said that one issue involves the porch. He stated that the porch is nine
feet, and if he could accommodate it on the lot, he would. McCallum said that he discussed the porch with
Bob Miklo, and everyone agreed that the porch was built around 1904, about 20 years after the building
was constructed. McCallum said he would like to construct a porch there similar to Helen Burford's. He
said he does plan to reconstruct a porch, but his first considerations are preparing the site, moving the
house, and getting a foundation under it. McCallum said that he will therefore be back at some point with
a porch proposal for something with an Italianate design at the very front of the structure.
McCallum said that he has a June 1st deadline, and, at this point, he has bank financing in the amount of
$210,000 from Hills Bank, with an open invitation to review that amount. He said he has a mover who is
pressuring him to sign a contract so that if he can move things through the public process quickly, it will
enable him to start signing contracts and putting things in motion. McCallum said he also has someone to
do the foundation work.
Maharry asked McCallum about the feasibility of moving the current porch. McCallum said that it has a
slab under it so that it is not technically a porch. He said that the sides of it are concrete, and the little
arches are hollow. McCallum said he was not certain that it could not be done. He added that the issue is
really the porch on the side of the house. McCallum directed Commission members to look at the site
plan. He said that his current parking lot has excessive parking, but he needs that driveway access to get
through to the parking. McCallum said that right now the driveway is the width of a City street. He said
that adding the porch to the side would make it physically impossible to accommodate any parking on the
site.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 13, 2006
Page 2
McCallum said the Board of Adjustment does have the power to exempt him from all parking
requirements, but he did not believe he would want to go from 30 parking spaces to zero. He said the
plan before the Commission would have 17 spaces, which would be enough for the sanitarium needs.
McCallum said that he would be asking for an exemption for all the parking required for this house, the
Myers House. He said there is a five-foot offset on the east side of the property, and even one more foot
to push the house eastward would be helpful as well, to separate the two buildings further.
Weitzel asked if this building is planned for use as a guest house. McCallum confirmed this. He stated
that it is economically unfeasible to make a business plan work at $200,000 at the current market for a
three or four-bedroom rental property. McCallum said he has run a more aggressive guest house model,
to satisfy the bank needs, and would need at least six guest rooms.
McCallum added that this would have a full basement underneath it. He said the plan is to pour a
basement with a brick face; he said he would like to salvage the rubble from the original building to relay it
up as the foundation. McCallum said there are a number of basement windows, on the east side in
particular, that will probably work on that east side as much as possible.
Weitzel asked McCallum what he would use for parking for the six guest rooms. McCallum said that at
any given time, two-thirds of his current parking lot sits empty. He said there is flow through a parking lot.
McCallum said he may call this a faculty house or target international students, people who may not have
a car. He said the transient nature of the business doesn't require parking needs there all the time.
McCallum said that the normal flow through the lot of tenants in and out would also be a factor.
Helen Burford said that, as a resident of the College Green Neighborhood, she looks at this as a good
addition to the community. She said the area has had both single-family and multi-family dwellings along
College Street for its entire history. Burford said she doesn't think this would be out of place, and, in
addition, the style of the house is in keeping with others in the neighborhood. She said the house is in
period within the area.
Maharry asked about wording for the motion. Terdalkar said the Commission first needs to decide if this
structure would have legitimate landmark status and if the nomination is complete. He said that the
Commission would then make a motion to designate this as a landmark and another motion for a
certificate of appropriateness for moving the structure, with or without the porch. Terdalkar said the
landmark designation should also take into consideration the factor of the porch and whether this would
be a landmark in a new location with or without the porch.
Ponto said he really likes the porch, but he also likes the building. He said it is worth saving the building
without the porch, rather than losing both of them.
Maharry agreed. He said that if the Commission has two historic structures, an old house and the porch,
rather than losing both, it would be preferable to sacrifice one and keep the predominant one, which is in
itself historic, and instead of two historic additions to the College Street neighborhood, there would be one
major one.
Carlson said that when the house is moved, as he understands it, the porch will be removed, the
foundation will be different, and the integrity of location will be absent, which are three things that it has
now that it would lose in the move. He said that everything else in the application would apply to both
locations. Carlson said that if everything else in the application is sufficient for landmark status, he would
say that it would apply equally to either location.
Maharry asked Carlson if he believes the new location would be inconsistent with the house. Carlson
agreed with Burford that it will fit into the neighborhood. He said that in a way, gaining the integrity of
setting makes up for the integrity of location being lost.
Weitzel asked if anyone was in opposition to the designation. No one was in opposition.
MOTION: Ponto moved that the Commission determine the structure at 335 South Clinton Street
to be eligible for landmark status, without the porch and without the foundation, and that the
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 13, 2006
Page 3
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the structure as a landmark. Maharry
seconded the motion.
Carlson asked if something should be included in the landmark nomination about the losses that will
occur as a result of the move. Terdalkar said the motion could be amended to include the fact that,
despite these losses, the property should still be considered a landmark, as its architectural significance
would still be present.
AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto amended the motion to include the fact that, despite
the loss of the porch, foundation, and location, the property should still be considered a
landmark, as its architectural significance would still be present. Maharry seconded the
amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0-1. with Schatteman abstainina.
MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to allow the move of the
structure at 335 South Clinton Street to 819 East College Street.
Terdalkar said the applicant intends to construct a new porch on the house and is expected to come back
for a certificate for that at a future date. McCallum said he would like to have language accepting a
poured foundation with a brick face so that he would not have to come back before the Commission. He
added that, because the access to the existing basement is somewhat limited, he would like to work in an
exterior staircase at the rear to allow a service entrance into the basement area.
Weitzel asked if McCallum has a design in mind for the staircase. McCallum said it would probably be just
a black wrought iron railing staircase that would be part of the foundation. He said that it wouldn't be
above grade, except for the hand railing. Carlson said that he would rather, at this point, approve the
railing in concept so that McCallum would not have to come before the full Commission for a wrought iron
railing.
McCallum said if the Commission gave him a general direction, he would comply with that. Weitzel said
that, as with all railings and structures of that nature, one could either go with a plain black or plain metal
or whatever color or could try to make decorative features to match the building. McCallum said the
staircase would be poured as part of the foundation work, and he would like to have general approval for
the stock language used for porch railings. Terdalkar suggested that the staircase be subject to staff and
chair approval.
Carlson asked what the foundation'would look like. McCallum said it would be a poured foundation that is
done with a brick face. He said the hole would be dug and the site prepped. McCallum said the house
would then be moved to the site to sit on stilts. He said the foundation is then poured to fit the house,
which enables windows to be reused to some extent. McCallum said there is a definitive separation, in
that there is the rubble stone and then a concrete something between that and the brick. He said he
believes that the mover takes everything below the rubble up, under the foundation to be lifted up on
dollies. McCallum said the foundation will then be poured underneath, and there will be a brick ledge
above grade, so everything above grade would have a brick ledge. He said that as the mover is pulling
the house away or prepping it, he will salvage the rubble and re-utilize it as a brick face on the new
foundation when it is set on the house.
Carlson asked if it would then be brick rubble, not the stone rubble from the stone foundation. McCallum
said that it would be a stone rubble foundation. Carlson asked if it would be a stone rubble veneer, and
McCallum confirmed this. He added that he believes all this occurs below the brick level; the brick is
unaffected. McCallum said there is a separation between the brick and the rubble that he thought would
be taken as well. He said that as much as possible, the mover will try to maintain the integrity of the
building.
AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Maharry amended the motion to approve a certificate of
appropriateness for the moving of the house, with a stone rubble foundation exterior and a
basement stair to be approved by staff and the chair. Carlson seconded the amendment. The
motion carried on a vote of 5-0-1. with Schatteman abstainina.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 13, 2006
Page 4
Maharry said that this process came together with work by the City staff, the City Council, Karin Franklin,
the Historic Preservation Commission, Friends of Historic Preservation, and Richard Carlson. He stated
that the work came together quickly, was well done, and shows how a process like this can be done in an
expedited way.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Certificates of Aoorooriateness.
430 South Summit Street. Terdalkar said that this application is for an addition to an existing garage. He
stated that the footprint will be increased by 12 feet and 24 feet. Terdalkar said the drawings show the
addition, with three new windows, and said that the side elevation of the garage would be duplicated with
the addition. He said the applicant intends to use similar materials to those existing on the garage, and
this application appears to be consistent with the guidelines.
Connie Chamoion, the owner of the house, said that she would like to be able to park a second car in the
garage.
Ponto said that on the existing garage there appears to be a regular square window with four panes on
the side. He said the new addition would have three single-pane windows and asked if there were a
reason for that. Champion replied that she did not have a particular reason but just wanted to have some
windows across there so it isn't just bare wood. She added that her house does not have any paned
windows.
MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a garage addition at 430
South Summit Street, as proposed. Ponto seconded the motion.
Ponto said he did not really have a strong feeling about the windows but wondered if there were a reason.
Carlson said that a lot of the application refers to matching the existing. He asked if the motion should
specify what the existing is. Carlson said there was no written description under product description, and
so the only place that specifies the materials is in the staff comments. He said it would be important to
specify it in the motion, because it is not clear from the drawing.
Champion said that the City has the original drawings that were approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission from when the garage was built, so there should be easy access to that information.
AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Maharry moved to amend the motion to include the staff
comments regarding building materials in the application. Ponto seconded the amendment. The
motion carried on a vote of 5-0-1. with Schatteman abstainina.
712 Ronalds Street. Terdalkar stated that this application is for an addition to the back of a non-
contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. He said this will be a two-story addition with
about a 14 %-foot wide and 16-foot long footprint. Terdalkar said the applicant is requesting approval of a
metal shed roof and wood windows, wood siding, and a foundation to match the existing.
Robert Warner, the owner of the house, said the idea of the addition is to add a bathroom on the first
floor, expand the kitchen, expand the bedroom on the second floor, and add a bathroom up there. He
said he is trying to add a couple more feet up there to make the bedroom usable.
Warner said the building is rather strange in its alignment in that the front end is the older part, and it only
has 5 %-foot high ceilings at the edge. He stated that the current code requires 7 % feet. Warner said the
addition in the back was put on another addition underneath it, which is why it sticks out one and one-half
feet all the way around. He said he wanted to touch the existing structure as minimally as possible.
Warner referred to the old cistern by the steps coming off the porch and said that it is right where he
wants to put the footer. He said he wants to do a simple post and beam construction and tuck the roof in
underneath the existing roof and have a shed roof coming out. Warner said that would keep an even
profile that kind of runs across the whole length of the house.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 13, 2006
Page 5
Warner said his photographs show other houses around his that have metal"racing?" roofs. He said that
because of the slight slope on the roof, there wouldn't be a guarantee on any shingles that would be
used. Warner said he therefore wants to use a metal"racing?" roof.
Warner said the design is based on the structural simplicity of it. He said he would do a post and beam
construction, with laminated beams to go across and support it. Warner said that would then be an
independent structure. He said he can't trust the foundation, because he believes the cistern has leaked
water into the basement wall, resulting in deterioration of the brick on the inside. Warner said he therefore
does not want to do anything that would put a load on the existing foundation.
Weitzel asked Warner if he would be filling the cistern. Warner replied that he would fill it with a stone,
aggregate material. He said he hopes to locate the new footer right at the top of the existing footer, so it
does not disturb the existing one, and then have a crawl space underneath.
Warner said that if the Commission insists that he uses a peaked roof, he would ask that it not touch the
existing roof, in other words, have it with a vertical face and a fixed window that will then get light down
into the room below. He said he would really like to go with the shed, because he thought it would be the
best for the rain coming off there. Warner added that he would match the wood and siding and the
concrete block.
Weitzel asked if the pitch of the roof is okay for a metal roof product. He stated that some of the metal
roofing is not very good for near flat roofs. Warner said he would put a pitch on at the minimum for that,
but it would be less than the four to one.
Ponto said that a lot of the standing seam roofs in the neighborhood have pretty steep pitches, and the
closer to flat roofs tend to be more of a pressed seam or soldered kind of flat thing. Warner said he needs
to have something that is guaranteed and so will have to have something other than shingles at this pitch.
Carlson said the application states that the wood siding will be wider lapped than the existing siding.
Warner said the house has a couple of different lap types on it, including a four and one-half inch and a
five inch. He said his understanding is that the addition is supposed to look different than the main
structure, so he could go to five and one-half or go down to three and one-half. Weitzel said an addition is
supposed to be distinguishable from the original structure, but there shouldn't be any problem with that
here.
Terdalkar said that to distinguish between the new and the old addition, Warner can just use a trim board,
which is usually done, and then he can keep the same lap width. Carlson said he thought it would look
disjointed enough without using a different lap width.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 712 Ronalds
Street as proposed, with the option of using siding of an equal lap if desired. Maharry seconded
the motion.
Carlson said he appreciates what staff is trying to do here, but he was not certain there was any way to
make an addition here look especially compatible. He said there are earlier 20th century shed roof
additions on some houses. Carlson said that if this is what the owner really wants, he is willing to say that
it would not add sufficiently, in his opinion, to put a gable roof on here.
The motion carried on a vote of 5-0-1. with Schatteman abstainina.
220 South Dodae Street. Terdalkar said that this application is for an alteration of a contributing structure
in the College Green Historic District. He said the applicant wants to replace a pair of basement windows
with egress-sized windows and install a new entry door by enlarging the existing cellar entryway to the
basement. Terdalkar said the applicant had new information to present, and he distributed it to
Commission members.
Michael McLauahlin, the owner of the house, said his intent is to finish off the basement of the house with
a basement bedroom, bathroom, and laundry room. He said that he would use the existing cellar entry,
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 13, 2006
Page 6
which is constructed of cinder block. McLaughlin said the entry door is below grade, and so he would like
to reconstruct the cellar entry with the same materials, cinder block, to accommodate egress
requirements. He said he selected a weatherproof door with a composite threshold and would also be in
that rear door entry, which would suffice for egress.
McLaughlin said the egress window on the south side would be double hung windows that would match
the same style that is on the house, with a little bit of an expansion of the window well to provide egress.
Weitzel asked about potentially using the inside stairway. McLaughlin said that was not really feasible,
given the structure. He said the stairwell would have to be extended out about three feet into the room,
which would be well beyond where the load bearing joist is above, so that it is not really much of an
option to do it internally.
Regarding the extension of the roof over the back, McLaughlin said he would use inset gutters, a metal
aluminum roof to match, molded wood to cover the exterior of the inset gutters and for the soffit
underneath, two-inch tongue and groove wainscoting. He said he would be using two-inch wide lap siding
to match what is existing there.
Carlson asked if the new egress window on the south side of the house would rise up any higher than the
current window. McLaughlin said it would not, that he would just be using the existing frame. He said the
view from the street will be pretty much the same as it is now. Carlson asked about the new drawing
submitted with the roof and if the window underneath that on the first story would not be affected.
McLaughlin said that is correct. He said that the underside of the extended roof would be a little bit more
than a foot above that, so it won't be affected at all.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal for 220 South
Dodge Street, as proposed. Maharry seconded the motion.
Carlson asked about the windows being proposed. McLaughlin said the only change in the windows
would be the south side egress window. He said he planned to use the 850 series, which is wood with
metal clad, and the wood is fully wrapped. Carlson asked if it would be a divided light window. McLaughlin
said it would be a single pane to match the existing windows. Carlson asked about the proposed door.
McLaughlin said that because it would be below grade, he would like to use a six-panel door.
Ponto asked if the stairwell down to the new basement door would require handrails. Terdalkar said that if
there are more then four risers, then handrails would be required, and a simple metal pipe rail would be
sufficient. McLaughlin said that there would be more than four risers and agreed to the simple metal pipe
rail.
Carlson asked if the height or width of the existing door would be changed. McLaughlin said it would not
and that the opening would stay the same.
AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Ponto moved to amend the motion to approve a pipe rail or
a similar hand rail. Maharry seconded the amendment. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0-1. with
Schatteman abstainina.
900 North Johnson Street. Terdalkar said this application is for the construction of a new garage on this
site at 900 North Johnson Street, which is a contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District. He
said that the footprint of the garage would be 23 feet by 23 feet. Terdalkar said the dimensions given are
internal dimensions, so that is the reason for the change. He said that the applicant has requested one
single garage door with the width of two cars, instead of two separate garage doors. Terdalkar said the
applicant would also like to install a small vent on the roof that would not be visible from the front of the
garage.
Matthew LaQe, the owner of the house, said the door would look like an older door and would be made of
wood. He said he still hasn't decided whether it should be one door or two separate doors.
Ponto asked if Lage planned to use rain gutters. Lage said he assumed that he would.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 13, 2006
Page 7
Carlson asked Lage if he was still considering the two different siding materials. Lage said he was
considering a Dutch overlap and a three-inch trim that would match the house. Carlson said it is
recommended to match the house. He said the one concern is not to make it look too much like a 1918
garage, but he thought there would be enough differences here.
Ponto asked Lage if he would have soffits or just open rafter tails. Terdalkar said that the house has
closed soffits, so that gives Lage the option of using closed soffits here. Weitzel said that if the garage
has gutters, the exposed rafter won't be seen, although he did not care either way. Lage said that he will
probably use soffits. .
MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new
garage at 900 North Johnson Street, as proposed, allowing both alternative siding materials,
allowing the option of having or not having a soffit, and allowing the option of using one or two
garage doors. Ponto seconded the motion.
Maharry said he thinks this is okay with one or two garage doors because this proposed garage would be
quite a distance from the street and would not be terribly visible.
Carlson stated that the guidelines recommend having two doors instead of one broad door, so that would
be the preferred option, but the Commission is not at liberty to require two doors. Weitzel said the door
shown in the drawing takes out some of the importance of the separated doors, because it has such a
nice, authentic look.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0-1. with Schatteman abstainina.
830 Bowerv Street. Terdalkar said this application is for the demolition of an outbuilding on the property.
He said there was an accident in which the garage was damaged. Terdalkar stated that the applicant has
not provided any information about future plans, although that is not required by the guidelines. He said
the Commission will need to review this to determine if the building is architecturally significant and if
there is damage that is beyond repair.
Ann Freerks said she sent a memo to the Commission earlier in the day to convey her opinion. She said
she walks by this building almost daily and has never felt threatened by it or felt that it was a public safety
issue. Freerks said that since the post was put in, the building is shored up, and she feels it could be
easily repaired.
Terdalkar displayed on the overhead screen another letter from a neighbor, Martha Greer. Weitzel said
that Greer's letter is also in support of repair.
Maharry asked if the applicant had supplied any evidence besides photographs, such as an engineering
report, that the structure was unsound. Terdalkar said he did not. He added that a City building official
drove by the building, and although he did not do an official survey, he did not feel that it was about to
collapse.
MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of an
outbuilding at 830 Bowery Street. Carlson seconded the motion.
Maharry said he would vote against the motion. He said that although he is not an engineering expert, he
walked around all four sides of the structure, and they appear plumb. Maharry said it does not appear that
the structure was knocked off its foundation or is leaning, except for the one area that is currently slightly
buckled. He said the building is on a foundation, so the bottom is not decaying as it might otherwise.
Carlson agreed. He said he walked by the structure and except for the one corner, it looks perfectly
sound. Carlson said the building itself is unusual in the area and contributes to the historic character of
the area. He said it probably dates to the teens or twenties and looks to be largely unchanged since that
time. Carlson said that, barring any strong reason to tear this down, which the Commission has not heard,
he would vote against the motion.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 13, 2006
Page 8
Ponto pointed out that the application says the building presents a hazard to the safety of pedestrians and
vehicular traffic. Weitzel said that other opinions that have been submitted contradict that. Ponto said
there is not evidence to support the contention that is a hazard.
Terdalkar referred to the photographs provided by the applicant. Ponto asked if there is currently a
temporary post holding up the building in the corner. Terdalkar confirmed that a post had recently been
put up there. Ponto said he believes that repair of the building should be considered as the first option.
The motion failed on a vote of 0-6-1. with Schatteman abstainina.
519 South Summit Street. Terdalkar stated that this application is for an addition to the back of a house
that is a contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. He said the applicant is proposing to
demolish a part of a current addition that is a second or third addition to the house and would like to
construct a new, one and one-half story addition that would have a ground floor footprint of 12 feet by 28
feet.
Terdalkar said the owners also propose to construct a gable roof on the existing addition from where it is
a flat roof. He said the applicant has provided new drawings that have a slight change in that he has tried
to line the windows up in horizontal and vertical lines.
Sarah Richardson, the owner of the house, said that she and her husband, David Barker, have lived at
this address for about nine years. She said they love the neighborhood and are dedicated to old houses
and won a painting award from the Commission several years ago.
Richardson said that staying in the bonds of historic appropriateness is very important to them, and they
are trying to do that on the inside as well. She said that the motivation for this addition is to accommodate
changing family needs from the time that the current kitchen was built. Richardson said they would like a
historically appropriate space to enhance the property and accommodate their needs.
Richardson pointed out that the addition that was done before was so poor that this change would only
enhance the building. Weitzel said it is an important point that this would change an existing addition.
Russ Garrett, the contractor for the project, stated that the existing addition was done very poorly. He said
it has a flat roof and does not meet any criteria that would match any historic preservation whatsoever.
Garrett said he would like to bring the portion of the addition that was already done so that it looks more
appropriate and more in proportion with the existing house and also build a larger kitchen. He said the
drawing provided to the Commission shows the distance from the back of the addition to the garage at 24
feet, where it is 32 feet now. Garrett said he would remove the existing small porch that is on the back
now and then continue out from there another 14 feet.
Richardson said that she wants to make sure that she has enough backyard and therefore intends to
remove a concrete slab and turn it back into yard area. Garrett said there is also space between the
garage and the alley, because the garage is set in on the property a little way.
Carlson asked if, in the new drawings that were submitted, there is anything different other than the
removal of the bay windows. Garrett said that on the south side of the house, there is a window all the
way to the left that was a bathroom window. He said he would change that window to match one of the
windows of the original foyer. Garrett said that Terdalkar had some recommendations, and as a result, he
lined up two windows so that they are symmetrically the same off the corners of the house and are also
the same size as the existing window on the north side. Garrett said that the kitchen window would be a
triple unit.
Regarding exterior changes, Garrett said the bathroom window would be changed to match the window
on the front of the house. He said he would also make a handful of changes to clean up the lines on the
back of the house. Garrett said the pitched roof over the back would remove the flat roof.
Carlson said that one of his concerns with the original design is that it would add clutter to an already
cluttered house. Garrett said he heard those concerns and has planned for cleaner lines now. He said he
would follow the architecture that is there.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 13, 2006
Page 9
Carlson said that the plans call for existing non-matching curricles to be replaced with curricles matching
those in the original design. Garrett said he would be open to that. He said that Terdalkar suggested that
it might be better if the ones put on the addition when the addition was put on in the early 1960s were left.
Garrett said that the original ones are pretty ornate. Carlson said that if the addition was as late as the
50s or 60s, he would not be committed to keeping them either. Richardson said the neighbor has dated
the additions as being built in the 1960s and 70s, the 50s at the very earliest.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition to 519 South
Summit Street in accordance with the new drawings presented at the current meeting, with the
exception of allowing 125 feet from the lot line.
Terdalkar said the motion should address the issue of 125 feet, because the language in the guidelines
allows 125 from the street and specifies that the intent is to maintain the open space in the rear yards. He
said the guidelines do not refer to the property line, but he would interpret this as being from the curb line
or the street, as they are both visible.
Carlson asked if the current plan would go approximately 4 Yz feet beyond the 125 feet from the curb.
Terdalkar confirmed this and said the Commission could consider an exception to that rule, although it
should specify the reasons for the exception.
Weitzel said it is in the guidelines, but the language doesn't refer to the curb, the property line, or the
center line of the street. Terdalkar said he believes that it refers to the street. He said that because both
the property line and the street center line are invisible, the Commission may want to consider the curb.
He said that he discussed this with the legal department, and the attorney said this is something for which
the Commission would want to set a standard.
Gunn said that the Commission discussed this at the last meeting, and he referred to page two of the
minutes where Weitzel refers to "the front of the lot line." Gunn said that he and Ruedi Kuenzli measured
the 125 feet, and to the best of his recollection, it was from the inside of the sidewalk, which is generally
considered the property line. Gunn said the language was probably not very well drafted but said that he
was comfortable with this as it is.
Maharry said that any way the Commission interprets this, it can also recommend a special exception for
this and does not necessarily need to create a precedent at this time. Carlson asked what the special
exception would be baseq on. Maharry suggested it be based on the improvement in the overall
appearance of the house. Carlson said he would be more comfortable setting a precedent to use the
edge of the lot line.
Ponto said that he would be comfortable going with the original intent of the drafter of the guidelines.
Gunn said that the lots on Summit Street are about 220 feet from front to back, and this is only
considering about a ten-foot difference, as there is a fairly narrow area between the sidewalk and the
curb. He said that if this is an encroachment, it's fairly small anyway.
Gunn seconded the motion.
Carlson said he did not think the Commission knows enough about the brackets and when they were put
on. He recommended against the removal of historic materials until it's determined that they are in fact
earlier 20th century as opposed to mid to late 20th century. Garrett said that there are two different kinds
on the north side. He said there are plain square brackets and brackets that are ornate. Garrett said the
large brackets underneath the bay windows on the other side of the house match the ornate bracket on
the house. He said that the three that match are on the older portion of the house.
Carlson said he would like to see the brackets maintained to keep a sense of how the rear wing
developed. He said that one should be able to distinguish the new addition from the old, but because
there is so much going on back there now, it will be difficult enough as it is. Carlson said that keeping the
brackets might distinguish that part as the older part of the house.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 13, 2006
Page 10
Maharry said that the windows seem to do that, because there are long, thin, narrow windows on the old
part versus what is proposed. Garrett said he would be matching the other windows to the front windows
on the house.
Carlson asked if there were any way, since there is not a setback or change in much of anything else, to
distinguish that this part is 50 or more years after the other part. Garrett said that one can tell because
there is a two-inch offset where there is a different height of trim. He said there is also an offset of eight
inches in the foundation that would remain, because no work would be done there. Garrett said that
would separate the older portion of the house from the later addition.
Carlson recommended doing a different foundation to distinguish the addition. Garrett said he can't match
the previous brick anyway, because that style is no longer available.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0-1. with Schatteman abstainina.
520 Grant Street. Weitzel said that he has had extensive conversations about this project with both the
owner and the contractor and felt he could no longer be impartial. He said he would therefore recuse
himself and turn over chairmanship of the meeting to Carlson, the Vice Chair.
Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the
proposal is to re-side the house with fiber cement board and also construct a front porch across the full
front facade. Terdalkar said that this application was previously deferred, because the applicant was not
available for discussion of an alternative, and the applicant is currently out of town.
Terdalkar said it is unusual to have a front porch of this type on a Cape Cod style house. He said that this
house is possibly from a mail order catalog. Terdalkar said he researched the Sears catalog and did find
a Cape Cod with a front porch just in front of the door but not running the full length of the front facade.
He said that would be a more logical addition to this house.
Terdalkar said the illustration provided by the applicant shows an addition on the side, which is a logical
way to add to this type of house. He said that this house already has a three-season room on the side of
the house.
Maharry said the applicant has a May ih deadline and asked if the Commission would meet again before
that date. Carlson suggested that the Commission approve the siding in time for the deadline, and the
porch could be proposed as a separate motion. Maharry said the application is for the siding and the
porch, so he suggested the Commission rule on all of it or defer all of it. Terdalkar said the applicant
indicated that the May ih deadline was an insurance deadline for the siding of the house. He said that if
the applicant wanted to then do the porch, he would have to redo the siding in the front, so that the
applicant wanted to have both items considered at one time.
Maharry asked if the applicant would be willing to defer this. He said it would be in the applicant's best
interests to have it deferred.
Gunn said that the Commission could approve this subject to a design change in the porch. He said there
is some precedent for front porches but perhaps not just exactly like this proposed front porch. Maharry
said the precedent for putting a front porch just over the door of a Cape Cod house is not nearly what the
applicant would like to do. Carlson said that, as far as he knew, there is absolutely no precedent for a
porch wider than right around the front entrance, and even that is rare.
Terdalkar said he has seen one model using a very similar pitch of the dormer so that there would be an
enlarged dormer coming out at the front, and there would be some covered area in front of the door,
perhaps a ten by ten foot area. He said it could have support columns and a gable end.
MOTION: Maharry moved to table consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for a proposal
for 520 Grant Street to the Commission's April 27th meeting. Gunn seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 5-0-2. with Schatteman and Weitzel abstainina.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
April 13, 2006
Page 11
Terdalkar reminded the Commission that there would be two nights of meetings next week at which
Marlys Svendsen would be present for discussions.
Weitzel took over as chair of the meeting at this point.
Minutes for March 16. 2006 MeetinQ.
Carlson said that on page two, in the sixth paragraph, the word "listing" should be included after "National
Register." He stated that on page four, in the ninth paragraph, the word "moving" should be changed to
"removing." Carlson said that on page six, "form" should be changed to "from" in the sixth paragraph.
MOTION: Gunn moved to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2006 Historic Preservation Commission
meeting, as amended. Brennan seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0-1. with
Schatteman abstaininQ.
Burford referred to a chart she distributed regarding the historic preservation awards. She said that there
were four rejections, two no responses, and she is waiting for two other applicants to respond.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
s:/pcdlminules/2006HPCminutes/04-13-06.doc