Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-23 HPC Agenda packet Thursday December 14, 2023 5:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall City Hall IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, December 14, 2023 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30 p.m. Agenda A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. HPC23-0074: 738 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (basement egress window and window well) 2. HPC23-0002: 811 East College Street – College Green Historic District (mini-split installation) 3. HPC23-0056: 610 North Johnson Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch reconstruction) deferred from November 9 meeting and staff report revised E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC23-0053: 614 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (new garage construction) 2. HPC23-0069: 230 Fairchild Street - Northside Historic District (roof repair and reconstruction) 3. HPC23-0071: 515 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (concrete step replacement) 4. HPC23-0076: 1033 East Washington Street – College Hill Conservation District (outbuilding foundation repair) 5. HPC23-0072: 515 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (siding and trim repair and rear basement window replacement) Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC23-0063: 1030 E Burlington Street – College Hill Conservation District (mini-split installation and screening) F) Consideration of Minutes for November 9, 2023 G) Commission Information H) Adjournment If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jessica Bristow, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5243 or at jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Staff Report December 5, 2023 Historic Review for HPC23-0074: 738 Oakland Avenue General Information: Applicant/Owner/Contact: Lama Noureddine Lama-nourredine@uiowa.edu District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: Removal of a basement window located on the south side of the property near the front side of the home and its replacement with an egress window and window well. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.5 Foundations 4.13 Windows Property History: This house was built between 1915-1925 as a two-story Foursquare with a low-pitched hipped roof, wide eave overhang and a front facing dormer, all producing a horizontal design emphasis. The house has a full-width front porch with a paneled balustrade. The house has one-over-one double-hung windows with a decorative leaded-glass portion in the cottage window on the first floor. There is a rear one-story bump out that was originally half enclosed and half open porch. It has been fully enclosed. In 2003 the Commission approved a project to replace the porch railing to match the historic railing. Earlier in 2023 Staff approved the construction of a new step and stoop at the rear of the property. Detailed Project Description: This project is proposing to install an egress window for a new bedroom in the basement on the west end (front) of the south side of the house. The window will be a casement window with muntin bars adhered to both sides of the glass so that it appears as a three-over-one double hung window. The top, exposed course of the egress window well will be a stucco- coated block painted to match the existing foundation. The window well will meet all applicable code requirements. Guidelines: Section 4.5 Foundations recommends: • If new window wells are required, the materials used must appear similar to the existing foundation material. Section 4.13 Windows recommends: • Adding windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. • Adding new windows in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of the historic buildings or buildings of similar architectural style. • The use of metal-clad, solid-wood windows is acceptable. All replacement windows and trim must accept paint. Typically, sashes will be finished in a dark color, either black or dark green. • Divided lights may be true or simulated. Simulated divided lights may be created with muntin bars that are permanently adhered to both side of the glass, preferably with spacer bars between the panes and insulated glass. • Replacing a bedroom window, if required for egress by the Building Code, with a new one that matches the size, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance. Analysis: The property owner is proposing to add a bathroom and bedroom in the existing basement and adding a bedroom to the basement will require an egress window. Staff can approve a new egress window well as a minor review if follows the conditions for a minor review, including locating the window well on the back or on the back half of either side of the house. However, the proposed location is on the south side located near the front. The owner has stated that this location is the only appropriate location for the bedroom. Because the proposed location is not eligible for staff review and the project is located in a historic district, the project must be reviewed by the Commission. Staff finds it acceptable to replace the existing basement window located near the front of the south side to meet egress requirements. This location is not as visible as the north, or driveway side of the house. The new window will have the same 34.5” width as the existing basement window. As with all existing basement windows, the height of the window will need to be increased to meet egress requirements by lowering the height of the sill. The use of a casement window egress with adhered muntin bars on both sides of the glass, mimicking a double hung window, is an acceptable way to use a casement window where it may otherwise be inappropriate. Due to none of the existing sashes being black or dark green, staff finds it acceptable for the new window to match the existing color. While the main floor windows are typically one over one double hung windows, the basement windows have three lites, which matches the proposed egress window. Information about the proposed window is attached. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 738 Oakland Avenue as presented in the staff report. 738 Oakland Avenue- West façade 738 Oakland Avenue- egress window location marked 738 Oakland Avenue- egress window location detail 738 Oakland Avenue- egress window location detail Mulled/Stacked Units may need reinforcement and should be reviewed by a structural engineer. Signature Series None Assigned 11/15/2023 100 1 Unassigned Project JOB NAME PROJECT NUMBERDEALER NAME 3018297KNEBEL WINDOWS ALL UNITS VIEWED FROM THE EXTERIOR APPROVAL ROOM LOCATION / DESCRIPTION QUANTITY ITEM NUMBERPRODUCT SERIES - Product Style - Casement (8219) - Color / Finish - Exterior: White Alum. Interior: Pine Primed - White - Glazing - Insulated Low E Colonial Glz Bead - Grilles - SDL W/No GBG Simulated Double Hung Cottage 7/8" Colonial White Primed - White Pine - Jamb Depth - 4 9/16 Jamb Depth - Hardware Finish - White Staff Report December 7, 2023 Historic Review for HPC23-0082: 811 East College Street General Information: Applicant/Owner: Laura and Barry Westemeyer, lrwestemeyer@gmail.com Contact Person: Barry Westemeyer, barry.westemeyer@gmail.com District: College Green Historic District Classification: Key Contributing Project Scope: The installation of mini-split cooling system with exterior piping. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 10.0 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Property History: The Rohrbacher Sanitarium is a significant building from both an architectural and historical standpoint. Made of dark red bricks, sparsely trimmed with white stone, and with a round-arched window or two and a fine white-stone pedimented front entrance, this building exhibits a classical influence applied to a simple, blocky form. It was built in 1927 by Dr. William M. Rohrbacher who previously had housed his private hospital in a very large home (built for C.T. Ransom, prominent attorney, c. 1880s) on the same site. The building to the rear of the sanitarium appears to have once had automobile garage space which is now converted to apartments. Old, soft red brick faces portions of this building, and was likely salvaged from the house on the lot prior to the construction of the Sanitarium. The large boiler for the property was also in this building. Detailed Project Description: The current project involves the installation of mini splits on the roof and the installation of related piping. Mechanical and electrical permits are required for this project, which triggers historic review. While the work has been completed, it was not approved through the historic review process. Guidelines: The Historic Preservation Guidelines do not include specific recommendations for mechanical systems because they rarely impact the exterior of a historic building. The specific guidelines that will be used to review this project are Section 10, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. (IC HP Handbook, 59): • 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. • 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. • 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. • 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Radon installation systems have similar considerations as the installation of mini-splits; both have piping, while the mini-split also has an exterior unit. Radon Installation systems have been pre-approved for staff review if they meet certain conditions. These conditions could also be considered a template for reviewing a mini-split project. They are as follows: • The radon mitigation system being on a non-street facing elevation and located on the rear of the property if possible • The exposed PVC pipe (if any) is painted to match the structure. Analysis: The need for the installation of a mini-split system is not subject to review. The location of the exterior units and any exterior piping is subject to review. For this type of project, staff recommends that units are located on the back of primary buildings, or on roofs or other locations not visible from the street. Any exposed piping is located on the back of the building. Piping that cannot be in the back can enter the building and be obscured in chases and soffits constructed for the piping to run horizontally or vertically through the building. In other approvals, screening has been required for units that would be visible from the street. This project was completed by placing the units on the roof and running the piping down each side of the building as shown in the first three photos attached below. These photos also indicate the piping locations that staff finds are a negative impact to the historic character of the property, on the north, west, and east sides. During a typical project review, staff would work with the owner and contractor to provide alternative solutions to portions of the project that do not follow the guidelines. In this case, staff suggested in June to bring piping into the building through the roof since the units are located there. This week the applicant responded that their roofer and HVAC installer do not consider roof penetration a viable option. Staff would then suggest an alternative solution to locate the units on the ground and penetrate the wall from below. Review of building plans could provide additional alternative solutions with each unit’s location and piping considered individually. Staff recommends that all installations on the “carriage house/boiler room” and the back of the Sanitorium should be painted to blend with the material on which they are mounted. Staff photographed the building this week. Since piping on the north, west, and east sides has been painted red, staff assumes that the applicant intends this solution to be the updated proposal (this was not communicated to staff). It is staff’s recommendation that any piping on the north wall of the building and each side of the front projecting bay are relocated (one penetrates the center of a decorative arch over a window) as marked in the final photos, and that all additional piping is painted to blend with the building behind. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 811 East College Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: • Piping on the north wall of the building and each side of the front projecting bay is relocated • All additional piping is painted to blend with the building behind • Any damage to the brick building caused by the project is repaired with matching brick and mortar so that it is not visible. 811 East College Street- Rohrbacher Sanitarium (2017 image) The first three photos show the piping locations that staff finds are a negative impact to the historic character of the property, on the north west and east sides. Staff recommends relocation of the piping in these locations. 811 East College Street- November 2022 image - North facade 811 East College Street- November 2022 image - North façade and east side 811 East College Street- November 2022 image - west side and North facade The following photos show installation locations that staff recommends being approved if the piping is painted to match the material on which it is mounted. This would be the case for all piping on the outbuilding and the south face of the main building, even if not indicated here. 811 East College Street – south side 811 East College Street – south side 811 East College Street – secondary building west side 811 East College Street – secondary building east side The following photos show the current installation with piping painted red. Note that even the historic downspouts for the gutter system are only located on the east end of the building and not on the street-facing side. Staff recommends the piping indicated in red is relocated. 811 East College Street – December 4, 2023 image. North and east sides of building 811 East College Street – December 4, 2023 image. North and east sides of building 811 East College Street – December 4, 2023 image. North side of building 811 East College Street – December 4, 2023 image. North and west sides of building Staff Report Revised December 6, 2023 Historic Review for HPC23-0056: 610 North Johnson Street General Information: Applicant/Owner: Mike Oliveira, Prestige Properties, admin@prestigeprop.com District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: Porch reconstruction including floor, column, and stair replacement. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.10 Porches 4.14 Wood Property History: This house is an American Foursquare built between 1906 and 1912. It was moved to this location from 430 East Market Street by Max Yocum in 1967. Because of the move it has a new concrete block foundation a reconstructed front porch. The house exhibits several details that point to an influence from the older Queen Anne style: slight bump out on north wall, chamfered bay on south end of front facade, slight chamfered bay on south side. The Roof is hip with a bell-cast eave condition and matching dormers on three sides. The siding is a narrow lap siding with mitered columns and flared base instead of a water table trim board. In its original location the house had a small open porch at the rear door which was not reconstructed after the move. The front was modified and is no longer full width and the columns are also not original. Detailed Project Description: This project removes the existing porch floor structure due to deterioration. The flooring, stairs, skirtboard trim, and two front posts have all been replaced without a permit in violation of the zoning code. The applicant states that they have used a treated vertical- grained Douglas Fir. The flooring has been installed parallel to the house and inset within the floor structure (rim joists) which was painted white. The gap between the floor and the structure was caulked. Two 2x4 posts that the applicant says are structural were replaced with treated 4x4 posts. The stairs were replaced without closed risers or a toe-kick (which the applicant says they will replace). Porch skirting was not installed because there are windows in the porch foundation wall. The applicant has stated that they seek exceptions to the guidelines to allow them to retain the work that they have completed. The porch columns do not have corresponding piers below. Guidelines: Section 4.10 Porches recommends: • Replacing badly deteriorated components with new ones that match the historic components in design and material. Custom fabrication of columns, brackets, pedestals, and moldings may be necessary, but many porch components can be ordered through lumber yards. • Using vertical-grained fir porch flooring for its resistance to weathering. • Leaving exposed the support piers below the porch columns. Skirting must be added to fill the space below the porch floor and grade if this space is 18 inches or greater. The skirt must be located between the porch piers. • Constructing porch skirting using a 3-6 inch wood frame with slats fastened to the back of the frame in a vertical or lattice pattern. Disallowed: • Using unpainted treated wood for elements that would have been painted in their historic applications. Section 4.14 Wood recommends: • Duplicating and replacing historic wood elements when they cannot be repaired. Replacing damaged wood components with new or salvaged wood components that match the historic ones. • Substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Disallowed: • Substituting a material in place of wood that does not retain the appearance, function, and paintability of the original wood. Analysis: While this porch had been reconstructed following the move with the installation of a concrete block foundation and occupied space, truncating of the porch, installation of undersized turned columns, and the removal of piers and skirting, this property is within a Conservation District and Historic review is required for all exterior work, including the replacement of deteriorated materials. In Staff’s opinion, this porch was deteriorated, however, several parts of the work do not follow the Guidelines and follow the traditional installation: • The flooring is a treated tongue-and-groove flooring rather than a vertical-grained Douglas Fir. It is not installed perpendicular to the wall of the house to aid in drainage. It also does not overhang the skirtboard on the porch to create a drip edge. The current installation does not match the historic installation and relies on caulk to prevent moisture infiltration. Staff recommends replacement of this floor with one that is installed in the traditional manner. Staff recommends a tongue-and-groove porch flooring installed perpendicular to the front wall of the house and that overhangs a skirt board trim installed on the outside of the structural porch floor framing and painted. • The two 2x4 post on either side of the stairs were replaced with new 4x4 posts. New porch elements must match either historic porch elements or existing porch elements if historic or appropriate. In this case while the existing turned columns do not fit the Foursquare style of the house and are undersized, since the scope only included the replacement of the two central posts, staff could recommend approval of the two posts to match the existing turned columns. However, the applicant has proposed replacing all four columns with the vinyl columns attached to the staff report since they cannot find a match to the existing turned columns. Staff would recommend that the installation of two columns to replace the 2x4 posts would consist of new wood or fiberglass columns that match the existing corner columns. If the owner wants the scope to replace all porch columns or a match to the existing ones cannot be found, staff recommends either simple round wood or fiberglass classical columns or large square wood columns both of which would be appropriate on a Foursquare. • When the house was moved, the concrete basement was enlarged to continue under a portion of the porch. Porch piers were not installed under the columns. Even without porch piers, the guidelines require the installation of porch skirting. Staff sent the applicant a photo of 1037 East Washington Street that has been similarly modified but has porch skirting installed between false piers with the concrete painted black. Staff recommends a similar installation with framed openings cut in the skirting to allow light to enter the windows. If porch piers were required structurally, staff would recommend concrete block piers to match the foundation. Staff would not recommend approval of wood posts. • The applicant has agreed to modify the steps with closed risers and a toe-kick. The work currently completed without a permit and historic review does not comply with the guidelines. The applicant has requested exceptions to the guidelines to approve the work as completed. Documented exceptions to these specific guidelines to approve this work do not exist. Staff does not find that the guidelines are silent or unclear on these topics. Staff also does not find that this is an uncommon situation that warrants exceptions. There is nothing specific to this property that prevents a porch reconstruction project from following the guidelines. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 610 North Johnson Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:  The porch floor is replaced as described in the staff report, and  The porch columns are replaced as described in the staff report, and  Framed porch skirting is installed between false piers with openings for the windows in the foundation. 610 North Johnson Street – photo taken same day application submitted 610 North Johnson Street- porch with structural damage 610 North Johnson Street- porch with structural damage 610 North Johnson Street- porch flooring material 610 North Johnson Street- floor installation 610 North Johnson Street- porch floor structure 610 North Johnson Street- project as finished without historic review 1037 East Washington Street example Porch column option submitted by applicant: Structural QuickPost Porch Post with Lifetime Finish QuickPost synthetic porch posts are the perfect complement to our rail systems. Featuring the same lifetime finish as all rail system components, the vibrant color is virtually maintenance free and never needs to be painted. • Structural post with steel insert • Traditional Colonial or modern square detail • Trim to fit your project • Designed for use with rail systems • Virtually maintenance free • Lifetime limited warranty • This product is NOT paintable • Product Details • Shell is composed of UV-protected vinyl • Internal core includes a structural, galvanized steel tube • Kit includes mounting plates and screws Product Options • Sizes: 5" and 6" are nominal for Colonial styles • Sizes: 4" and 5" are actual for Square styles • Finish colors: White • Accessories: QuickPost Trim Kit available (sold separately - Item # 400600PWTK) NOTE: This product should NOT be painted! This product has a lifetime white finish. Potential new columns submitted 12/4/23 compared to existing columns Example of round Classical columns if all columns are replaced. Example of simple square columns if all columns are replaced. Porch diagram from the guidelines for reference MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2023 – 5:30 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Noah Stork, Deanna Thomann, Andrew Lewis, Christina Welu-Reynolds, Jordan Sellergren, Margaret Beck, Frank Wagner, Nicole Villanueva MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Brown STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Hochstedler, Stephanie Bennett CALL TO ORDER: Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC23-0056: 610 North Johnson Street - Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch reconstruction): Bristow stated the applicants have requested this item be deferred to the December meeting. MOTION: Wagner moves to defer this item until the December meeting. Beck second the motion and a vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Brown absent). HPC23-0059: 331 South Summit Street - Summit Street Historic District (porch reconstruction): Bristow noted this item is a key property and is currently covered with an aluminum siding. The owner does have an interest in someday uncovering it, but not now. This current project involves two areas of the house, both the front and the rear porch. On the rear porch, which used to be an open porch but now has been partially enclosed with storm windows and a storm door, they have built a deck that was approved. Now they want to switch the door from facing south to facing west and then switch the windows to the south side so that the door will enter directly onto the deck. The door will have a transom window above, and Bristow stated it will actually translate fairly well to switching to the other side, there just might be some trim adjustments. Additionally, the stairs and railing would be demolished because they'll just enter onto the deck which has its own set of stairs. On the front porch, Bristow stated that it is believed it was partially enclosed more than 50 years ago, it just has screens, and now they are going to open it back up again. In preparation for doing so they removed some of the aluminum siding on the inside and Bristow was hoping to see some more evidence of column footprints or other things on the wall of the house. Bristow showed images of the house and pointed out the decorative bargeboard and decorative dormers with lots of little divided light windows. They think this house is a free classic Queen Anne or a stick style because of the extra trim, so it would also have classical columns and some kind of spindled balustrade. This project would likely HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2023 Page 2 of 10 remove a little bit of deteriorated porch floor and will be replaced with vertical grain Douglas fir that will be mitered and installed in the same way. The porch columns would be either wood or fiberglass, likely an eight-inch column which would work well with the brick pier because the brick piers are 12 inches so that leaves two inches on each side for a larger column base. The spindled balustrade will have to follow the guidelines both for the diameter of the spindles themselves, and the spacing so that it doesn't look too thin. Bristow said the porch guidelines states that if they are going to be replacing badly deteriorated elements it is treated the same as if they are missing and either match what is historic on the building or find a building or historic photograph that would match. Bristow stated they looked at 609 South Summit as a similar style of home. Regarding the guidelines about the windows for the back part of the porch, basically they should not detract from the overall fenestration pattern and that's why they're just flipping what's already there. Bristow stated the recommended motion on this project is to approve it with the following conditions, the columns are approved by staff and the new balustrade follows the guidelines for the spacing and sizing. MOTION: Welu-Reynolds moves approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 331 South Summit Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: that new columns are approved by staff and that new balustrades follow the guidelines. Villanueva seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Brown absent). HPC23-0065: 1031 East College Street - East College Street Historic District (addition to kitchen and alterations to earlier rear addition): Bristow began the staff report stating this house is a four square with an addition from 1985 on the back. She explained there are three areas of work for this project. The first area is on the rear of the 1985 addition. They've already gotten approval to build the deck on the back of the house and now they are replacing the windows there with a French door for the current project. On the side of the addition there is a door and a stoop and steps that they will remove because they will have the new rear door. The applicant stated they could replace that door with a window like the other windows on that addition and that is something staff would recommend. The third area is where they did a small kitchen bump out which was completed prior to application and review. Bristow explained the house was purchased by the current owners on May 13, 2021, and they applied for a building permit on April 13, 2022, the building permit was marked up pointing out that they needed to acquire historic review for any exterior modifications. Bristow met with the owner on May 5, 2022 and they did not mention that they had applied for a building permit already. At that meeting they went over all of the potential areas of work on the house and discussed the approval process. Bristow also pointed out this kitchen area would be difficult to add actual space to the house because of the location of the other addition. The contractor requested a meeting on site and Bristow met the contractor and owners and on site in July 2023. The contractor told Bristow he would rather ask for forgiveness than permission. During that meeting they discussed fixing the front steps and adding a rear deck, two things they have applied for and have been approved. Bristow also noted that they completed a kitchen addition without approval and the owner told her they replaced the roof without approval too. They then applied for historic review on August 30, 2023, but more information was needed so they ended up reapplying two additional applications on October 9 and 10, 2023. Bristow separated the work into staff approvable and Commission approvable items in the two new applications. Regarding the work, Bristow showed the rear of the house noting the tree on the photo no longer exists, it came HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2023 Page 3 of 10 down after the derecho or one of those other storms. She pointed out where the deck is going to sit right behind the house, and the pair of fixed windows and lower awning windows that will be replaced with the French door. Staff recommends that it's either just a pair of full light doors or maybe four but no more divided light pattern than that because the house itself does not have a divided light pattern in its windows. Bristow noted the second area is the removal of the step and stoop. She pointed out on a photo a small awning type window here noting there are two other awning type windows on the opposite side of the house as well. To avoid an open space of wall without a window since it is a bedroom, they recommend replacing that door with a similar type of awning window. The third area of work is the kitchen addition. Basically there was a notch out of the 1985 addition at this area. In the back wall of the historic portion of the house they had a sliding door and a deck in that notched area that went out to the west wall of the historic house and all of that was done before the district was created, so that deck did not have to go through any approval nor did the addition from 1985 have to go through any approval. Bristow next showed the drawing that was submitted for the building permit pointing out the note that states any alterations to exterior of home requires historical approval. The Building Inspector did not know that they were adding space to the house, he thought it was a reorganization of the interior space because these were the only drawings submitted. He also had some other notes like safety glazing, smoke detectors, carbon dioxide detectors, exhaust hood for the range, bathroom exhaust, etc. Regarding the guidelines there are a couple of guidelines that this addition does not follow and had staff seen this they would have recommended that they fill in the notch in the 1985 addition by claiming this extra space, extending the west wall of the 1985 addition north to the south wall of the historic house, and that way they could keep all of the overhangs and retain the building form which would follow the guidelines. Bristow didn’t have any photos of what they did so she sketched a mockup of it and basically what they did is continued the west wall of the historic portion of the house south to enclose that notch and then closed that off so they have a bump out that's basically an extension of the historic house wall and is extended further than the roof overhang on the addition. Then in order to cover that portion, they continued the roof sloped down and ended it flush with the wall. Bristow shared what the staff recommendation would have been just to fill off that space, retaining the SW corner of the historic house and keep the roof overhang on the 1985 addition as well. There are several guidelines, the section 4.7 mass and roofline recommend preserving the original roof pitches and spans and preserving the original walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a historic building. However, by extending that wall further south, that guideline specifically is not being followed. There are other guidelines within the expansion of the building footprint and distinguishing between the historic structure and the new addition. In this case, had they sought and followed a staff recommendation they would have been filling in a notch in a 1985 addition so that would not have been a concern as there is already a distinction between the historic building and the 1985 addition. Bristow said that matching key horizontal lines on the existing buildings such as water table, eave height, window, height, and wards, etc., would also be required. Another guideline is related to the horizontal line of the roof edge, because now that they've extended further, they have a lower roof line as well along the new addition, so the key horizontal lines are not followed since they've created a bump out. The bump out did use a palette of materials similar to the historic structure and it is on the rear (two guidelines it appears to follow). Being consistent with the massing and roofline of the historic building, is not a guideline that's being met either since they did not construct the roof overhang and soffits and eaves so that they match the roof overhang on either they historic house or the 1985 addition. They don't have a roof overhang at all on the addition. The recommended motion is to HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2023 Page 4 of 10 approve the project as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: window and door product information is approved by staff, for example the French door would be wood or fiberglass and a simulated divided light pattern and the new awning window would be either wood or metal clad wood. Second, that the side door is replaced with a window as described in the staff report. And finally, that the rear edition is revised to follow the guidelines. Lewis asked about the bullet points and two of the four things have yet to happen and the third bullet points are to correct the thing that has already been done. Bristow acknowledged that was correct. Welu-Reynolds asked if in that correction the bump out with no eave overhang needs to be brought in and have a normal roof that matches the addition of 1985. Bristow stated that would be one interpretation of the guidelines which is why the staff recommended motion is just that it follows the guidelines. Typically, in a situation like this staff prefers to come up with a solution that helps but she doesn’t know of a solution right now so by saying it needs to follow the guidelines it puts it on the applicant to come up with a way to follow the guidelines. Wagner asked why there were no elevation drawings submitted. Bristow believes it was because the Building Inspector thought it was to be all interior work. Kevin Hochstedler (Hochstedler Building and Development) are the contractors doing the work here and they got to know the owners a couple of years ago when they were buying it in the process. He knows they met and checked in with their realtor who checked all the historical guidelines and everything. They all walked through the house to make sure they understood the historical guidelines and regulations clearly before they went forward and purchased the house. When his company got involved they were told a few things but the owners also gave their opinion of the guidelines and that anything on the front had to be approved and not the sides unless they were totally visible from the street. Hochstedler acknowledged a misunderstanding however they did also submit a drawing of the original footprint showing the notch out with that so he is not sure if it just didn't get recorded. Hochstedler stated they have been building for 40 years and have a long-term relationship with the city of Iowa City so he apologizes for any misguiding or doing something they shouldn’t have. They just tried to build the best product they could for their clients for the money. Hochstedler noted these were exuberant first-time homebuyers in an historical neighborhood where they always wanted to be so they were ready to set the world on fire. The project involved gutting most of the house while they were living there, a lot of stuff going on inside and out. He agrees that he would like to meet with staff on site and sketch out some elevations and overhangs which would be appropriate for the house and the district. Hochstedler stated the original decks and landing stair and railings were dilapidated and needed to be updated very badly, they just weren't safe. This was definitely a learning curve for them as first-time homeowners and in a historic district but at any rate they’re here to do whatever they need to do to make this appropriate for the neighborhood. What they plan to do is to make it look like foundation with some Hardie plank cement board, which is made for weather and doesn't rot, and then they can stucco a plaster over it. The existing foundation on the historic house is plastered over with a very heavy grainy texture like stucco but its just an old block foundation. Stephanie Bennett (Hochstedler Building and Development) shared some pictures of the property and also apologized for not doing the proper steps but they definitely want to continue the integrity of the house and the neighborhood. The first picture is how the addition looks now from one angle and then the next picture is how the addition or bump out looks from another angle. She showed how they would continue the stucco look along the foundation to make it look contiguous. The fourth photo showed how they would continue around to the other side and by doing that also help make it look like it's just continuing. Bennett acknowledged moving forward they can definitely work together on how they need HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2023 Page 5 of 10 to extend that roofline to meet the guidelines. Bristow noted when they do a one-story addition on a two-story house they do set it in from the sidewalls so that the roof does not jet out from the side of the house when one is looking at the house. Adding a roof overhang on the addition will project further than the wall of the historic house. Sellergren asked if to meet the guidelines the roofline would be extended approximately the same as the soffit on the 1985 edition. Hochstedler said he would have to measure to see if there is not a headroom issue, but they can do some things to make it look appropriate. Bristow stated the staff interpretation of the guidelines is that they retain the corner and then the eave line matches the soffit to have the same roof edge but with that bump out as it is, they cannot meet several of those guidelines so the Commission either needs to have the applicant follow the guidelines, evaluate whether or not what they're proposing right now follows the guidelines and if they don't think it does, they should tell them or if they do think it does follow the guidelines then approve that. Lewis noted that they are all seemingly saying is this already egregiously not following those guidelines so the correction to revise it to make it fit the guidelines is to bump it back in which is the way it would meet those guidelines. Welu-Reynolds asked if they were to extend that roofline so that it would match would it be the the original part of the house with the eave overhang would that follow the guidelines. Bristow stated the historic house has at least a two-foot overhang and the 1985 addition has an 18-inch overhang, so they don’t match. Her concern is that if they put this eave overhang on the new addition and have that window next to it, they're going to be covering a portion of the window or blocking it because the window is higher than that adjacent roof on the new addition. Stork stated this whole situation is obviously a mess but really appreciates the contractor’s willingness to work on trying to meet some of the historical guidelines, which again, are guidelines. It appears there is plenty of room to kind of match some of the roof lines and it's going to look fine. Beck doesn’t see how this bump out can occupy the space it does and fit those guidelines, she would love to hear more ideas because she just doesn’t know how they're going to make that roof look right because nothing lines up. She doesn’t want to foreclose other possibilities but is afraid that adding a foundation there doesn't change the fact that block of space can't be there. The roofline is messed up and it's not inset in like it should be. Sellergren agrees and stated she doesn’t see any possible way to meet guidelines with what currently exists no matter how it's revised. Welu-Reynolds noted they have a responsibility though to make a recommendation and this can be remedied the best that it can. She is concerned about the top board and having water going straight down that thing, it's going to damage if they don't have an eave overhang, and it looks like that top board already is split, so something has to be done with the roofline otherwise the damage done is just going to continue. Hochstedler stated he has been doing this for 40 years and there's many innovative ways to make things look appropriate and fit. He believes they could drive the neighborhood and find a similar circumstance with an appropriate way it looks and come back to with a proposal at a future meeting. Bristow stated if there is a guideline that the Commission would like to make an exception for in order to HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2023 Page 6 of 10 approve the addition as is, they need to identify that guideline and state the reason for the exception as well. She thinks that it needs to be generally approved in some way unless for some reason the Commission just wanted to deny this and say go back and redesign it and come up with something. Otherwise, if they approve it with some type of guidance, the applicant could bring something back to her as staff and she can interpret the Commission’s guidance and potentially approve without it coming back to the Commission. If she doesn’t think they meet that guidance, or it's just unclear, it would come back to Commission. Welu-Reynolds agrees that adding the stucco on the bottom makes it more cohesive so the stucco thing needs to be done. She also agrees that there should probably be some roofline that comes out for the integrity of the condition of the structure. She believes at this point they’ll come up with something that works. Sellergren stated she always has to raise the issue of precedent, which is that when the guidelines in a historic district are disregarded when a building project is begun, that sets precedent for this to happen over and over and over again, and as a Commission it's their responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. That is an unfortunate reality and an organic part of what happens when they allow the guidelines to be violated in a historic district, it creates havoc. Welu-Reynolds asked in general how often that happens, that the guidelines were not really adhered to and the Commission is in this situation. Bristow replied it's the overall issue of the work without a permit and they've had quite a bit of that this year, more than normal this this year. Welu-Reynolds is appreciative they’re here and trying to remedy this because some people wouldn't have been agreeable. She of course wishes they weren't in this situation to begin with but thinks they probably should come up with something rather than kicking the can down the road. Thomann asked even with alterations will this fit with historic guidelines. Welu-Reynolds replied no, not unless they tear off the addition and push it back because staff’s original recommendation would have been to line up with the 1985 addition and maintain the roofline. Stork trusts staff and his vision generally aligns with Bristow’s and he trusts her working with the contractor to achieve a solution. Sellergren reiterated if they approve this, they will be doing this over and over again for other future projects where the guidelines are disregarded. The project could be redone. Bristow stated if work is done already that does not matter to their review because it was a violation of the city code to do it without approval. They would review the project it as if it has never happened. Hochstedler stated the homeowner has mentioned they may just throw their hands up and put it up for sale and walk, then what happens? Sellergren noted it's unfortunate that the guidelines were ignored and that the building project proceeded without any adherence to them. Sellergren asked if Hochstedler has worked in historic districts in the 40 years he’s been active. Hochstedler replied he has changed windows in houses and done minor porch work and stuff. Sellergren doesn’t see what exception there is to be made unfortunately. She doesn’t think the roof can be revised to meet any of the standards, or any other guideline. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2023 Page 7 of 10 Wagner agrees and in general this wouldn't have been approved and therefore there isn’t any reason they should accept it right now. Sellergren stated they have a responsibility to protect the guidelines and this is a situation where if that's not done it does open up floodgates to future violations. Historic Districts exist for a reason to maintain the historic integrity of the neighborhood and piece by piece every moment it's violated, the integrity is degraded. Wagner suggested they recommend the motion just with the first two bullet points. Stork noted the one thing they haven't considered is how visible this is from the front of the house or the street. He understands that they don't want to be setting precedents, but they can make exceptions. Wagner stated the first two bullet points seem to be something that they would approve but that is the third bullet point is the issue. Sellergren noted this Commission has rejected proposals that have not met guidelines numerous times, stated it seems unfair to let it slide and make other homeowners oblige. Stork has a lot of empathy for new homeowners, especially in historic district being one himself. A lot of these additions were made before the Historic Preservation Commission was in place and they're trying to adjust to this house that's theirs. It's got historic and additions and yes everybody screwed up, including the City. Welu-Reynolds noted the Building Inspector clearly noted that any modifications were needed it must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Was he aware of what they were going to do. Bristow replied he was not, he had thought it was to all be interior modifications, Thomann asked about pushing it back in and removing everything that was built there. It's a very small bump out, so would it take much to knock it back. Bennett explained the kitchen has already been done though the interior with the cabinets installed and $2,000 to $3,000 worth of tile. Hochstedler added 99% of this project was inside the house, master bath remodel, kitchen remodel, other remodels to an upstairs bathroom and all that was approved by the Building Inspector. Bristow was on site with the homeowner and they talked about the fact that would be a problematic area because they won't be able to add extra space without bumping out. Villanueva asked a hypothetical question, if the Commission tells them they have to go and move it back in and they sell the house do they have to disclose to the new buyers that they have to come and automatically fix this. Bristow is not sure about real estate law, but they do have an open building permit that wouldn't be closed out so if a potential buyer came and asked they could disclose that and the past work. Welu-Reynolds thinks the best option then is just to do this, to go with the motion and see what comes back but as described, according to guidelines. MOTION: Lewis moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1031 East College Street, as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: window and door product information is approved by staff, that the side door is replaced with a window as HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2023 Page 8 of 10 described in the staff report, and that the rear edition is revised to follow the guidelines. Beck seconded the motion. Thomann stated so in saying yes to this they’re throwing it back to the homeowner to figure out how to revise within the guidelines. Bristow stated yes, if it was something that followed the guidelines she could approve that, but due to the complexity she would expect that there would probably be something that she would have to bring back to the Commission. A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 7-1 (Stork dissenting, Brown absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review HPC23-0062: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue - Woodlawn Historic District (chimney repair and reconstruction): Bristow noted this chimney is pretty deteriorated and therefore being repaired. Interestingly, below the chimney on the porch wall there's a chimney extension so they think that there was a fire at one point in time and so it was covered over and they're actually going to remove that and then just siding over it. HPC23-0068: 304 South Summit Street - Summit Street Historic District (north wall reconstruction): Bristow stated the foundation failed on the side of the house, so a certificate of no material effect was approved to basically reconstruct the area of the wall. Minor Review -Staff review HPC23-0058: 331 South Summit Street - Summit Street Historic District (synthetic siding removal at porch.): Approval to remove the synthetic siding. HPC23-0064: 1031 East College Street - East College Street Historic District (front step replacement and construction of new rear deck): Bristow stated this is a front step replacement and the construction of the rear deck were both approved by staff. HPC23-0067: 225 North Gilbert Street - Local Historic Landmark (deteriorated attic window replacement): The homeowners got a grant to replace the attic windows that were hardly hanging in there. Intermediate Review -Chair and Staff review HPC23-0066: 119 East College Street - Local Historic Landmark (commercial sign at second floor): This is a sign for a second floor business so the sign is higher than the staff-only approval allows. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2023 Page 9 of 10 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 12, 2023: MOTION: Wagner moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's October 12, 2023, meeting, as amended. Villanueva seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Brown absent). COMMISSION INFORMATION: Bristow gave an update on 302 East Bloomington Street. They did draft a letter to the owner and sent it to him by mail and also sent a copy to his realtor. They have not heard back yet but it requests pretty much any time or place to meet with them. Since they know the owner really appreciates and cherishes his property they hope he will understand why they want to as well. At some point after they've met with him, they will submit the application for rezoning on the Commission's behalf and then proceed with the process. Bristow noted the March meeting is during the University's Spring break week and would like to change the meeting date to the week after if that works. She will work on rescheduling that. ADJOURNMENT: Thomann moved to adjourn the meeting. Wagner seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Brown absent). The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 NAME TERM EXP. 11/10 1/12 2/9 3/22 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/9 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X O/E X X -- -- -- -- -- BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E X X O/E SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X THOMANN, DEANNA 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X VILLANUEVA, NICOLE 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/23 O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X LEWIS, ANDREW -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member