Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.14. 24 HPC Agenda Packet Thursday November 14, 2024 5:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall City Hall IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, November 14, 2024 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) Certificates of Appropriateness 1. HPC24-0090: 10 Bella Vista Place– Brown Street Historic District (garage additions) 2. HPC24-0093: 705 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (rear porch conversion/addition) 3. HPC24-0097: 927 South 7th Avenue – Dearborn Street Conservation District (window sash replacement) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC24-0100: 316 Church Street – Northside Historic District (laundry vent addition) 2. HPC24-0101: 826 E Davenport Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch soffit replacement) 3. HPC24-0109: 813 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (brick porch pier reconstruction) 4. HPC24-0108: 416 Reno Street – Local Historic Landmark (front porch railing and step replacement) Minor Review –Staff review 1. HPC24-0095: 725 East Davenport Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (new front step and balustrade) 2. HPC24-0094: 115 East College Street – Local Landmark (commercial signage) 3. HPC24-0099: 829 Kirkwood Avenue – Local Landmark (window replacement) 4. HPC24-0106: 28 South Linn Street – Local Landmark (awning fabric/sign replacement) 5. HPC24-0103: 416 Reno Street – Reno Street Neighborhood (step and stoop replacement) 6. HPC24-0110: 1129 E College Street – East College Historic District (overhead garage door replacement) Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review HPC24-0074: 629 Melrose Avenue – Local Landmark (roof replacement and internal gutter pan replacement) F) Consideration of Minutes for October 10, 2024 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 November 6, 2024 Historic Review for Project Number: HPC24-0090: 10 Bella Vista Place General Information: Applicant/Owner: Scott McDonough, mcdonoughscott1@yahoo.com District: Brown Street Historic District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: Addition of a second stall to the concrete garage set into the hill of the alley behind the house along with the addition of an outbuilding, similar to a rural outbuilding above the two stalls. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.3 Doors 4.13 Windows 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 6.0 Guidelines for New Construction 6.2 New Outbuildings Property History: This 1 ½ story house was built in 1908 occupying a prominent bluff-top location facing west with a view across the Iowa River. The steeply pitched gable roof is pierced by two shed dormers, one on each side. These dormers feature unique side brackets which match the gable-end brackets which support the wide roof overhang. A hooded second floor bay window is tucked beneath the roof overhang, and smaller windows flank the bay on either side. A complex picture window with multi-paned transom glass and side lights is on the main floor front. The square porch columns rest on tall porch piers constructed of rock-faced concrete block. The house has an interesting siding pattern with a lower half-course of narrow lapped siding with mitered corners. A low-level band board rings the house with lap siding and corner boards above. A mid-level band board also marks the floor level of the upper story. The rear of the house has a two story, flat roof addition that includes a sleeping porch on the second floor. Stick style horizontal and vertical bands, painted white, further break up the clapboard pattern here. To the north of the addition, is a screened porch. The existing one-car garage is a concrete structure below grade to the rear of the house with an unknown construction date. The concrete was formed by boards evident in the texture of the interior wall. It is assumed to be historic. The east wall of the garage is exposed, featuring a narrow strip of concrete surrounding all three sides of a paneled overhead door. Shorter retaining walls connect to steps on the north side of the garage and follow along the bank to the south. In 2001, the Commission approved a reconstruction of the South (uphill) foundation wall of the house because of a partial collapse. In 2023, the Commission reviewed a proposal to replace the garage with a new garage with a structure on grade above it. That project was not implemented. No other work has been approved on the house since the formation of the district. Detailed Project Description: This project adds an additional concrete garage stall to the north side of the existing subterranean single-car garage. The new stall will be the same width as the existing stall at the overhead door. but the elevation of the door opening will not match the existing door because of the existing slope in the alley and the surrounding lots. The new stall will step down from the existing stall as shown in the attached drawings. The garage addition will have an overhead door matching the existing door and the walls and roof will be poured-in-place concrete. Existing steps north of the garage will be replaced with new steps. A handrail will be required by code along these steps. A guardrail will be required along the bank of earth above the front of the garage. The project also includes a “chicken coop” addition on the grade above the garage. This structure will be located over the new portion to the north. It will be a one-story rectangular building. It will have a low-slope shed roof on the south half and a higher- slope shed roof on the north half, creating a band of clerestory windows between the two roof ridges. The building will have three windows on the south wall that will be aligned with the evenly spaced clerestory windows above (even though they do not currently align in the drawings). There will be three windows in the east wall facing the alley and two evenly spaced windows in the north wall. The west wall facing the house will have one window. It is recommended that the west facing window is centered on the wall to match the window patterning on the opposite, east wall. The building will have two passage doors, one in the west wall facing the house, and one in the south wall leading to the patio over the roof of the garage stall below. The building will have a lap wood siding similar to the house and asphalt shingles on the roof. The applicant proposes to use windows salvaged from a house at 117 Richards Street, a large decorative Craftsman Bungalow that was remodeled into a modern residences many years ago. These windows are rectangular casement windows with a divided light pattern in the upper portion of the sash. They are hung in pairs. The applicant has the salvaged storm windows too. The clerestory windows will be a six-light sash that is either fixed or an awning style. The space will be a work area where the applicant would like to have as much light as possible. The applicant proposes that the passage doors are “solid core… not wood.” The new overhead door will match the existing door. Guidelines: 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails recommends: • Balustrades (guardrails) and handrails serve as both decorative and functional elements on porches, balconies, and steps. For historic properties, the design should be consistent with the architectural style, but not at the expense of safety. • Providing handrails on … steps as required by the building code. The handrail should either match the porch balustrade or be made of round steel pipe. • Installing … square spindles that are 1-1/2 inches or greater in width. 4.3 Doors recommends: • Installing new garage doors that resemble the styles of historic ones, or installing new garage doors which are simple in design. • Adding trim to garage door openings that matches that of other doors and windows in the garage. • Installing two single-car doors instead of a single door. • Substituting a material in place of wood for doors only if the substitute material retains the style and appearance of historic doors and is durable, accepts paint, and is approved by the HPC. Fiberglass is commonly accepted as a replacement for wood doors. 4.13 Windows recommends: • Windows on outbuildings should be relatively small and rectangular or square. • It is disallowed to install modern types of windows including sliding, awning, casement, and bay windows when they were not original to the building, consistent with the architectural style, or required for egress. 5.1 Additions recommends: • Matching key horizontal “lines” on the existing building, such as water table, eave height, window head height and band boards, in order to provide continuity between the addition and the historic structure. • Using a palette of materials that is similar to that used on the historic structure. • Constructing an addition foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation in color, texture, unit size, and joint profile. 6.2 New Outbuildings recommends: • Placing new outbuildings, including garages, to the rear of the primary building. • Constructing garages and other outbuildings that are clearly subordinate in size and ornamentation to the primary structure. • Constructing new outbuildings that reflect the style of the primary structure. The primary structure will typically reflect a style of architecture prevalent within the district. See the 8.0 Neighborhood District Guidelines for the architectural styles that are appropriate for each district. • Installing garage doors that are simple in design. Smooth or simple panel-type garage doors may be used. Carriage-style doors in a style appropriate to the property may also be used. • Adding trim around the garage door openings that matches the trim of other doors and windows on the building. • Installing single-car garage doors. Double-car garage doors are discouraged. • Incorporating windows into the design that are relatively small and rectangular. Analysis: Please note that there are a few inconsistencies in the drawings. The drawings show that the garage and house are aligned while in reality, the garage is parallel to the alley and not aligned with the house. The new garage stall will be a wedge-shaped structure not visible because it is underground. The new outbuilding will align with the house. While it appears that there may be enough room to align with the house, install new stairs and maintain the five-foot setback from the north property line, that will be the owner’s responsibility to verify. See the aerial image where the existing garage and proposed new stall have been roughly sketched in red (existing) and orange (new). In Staff’s opinion, adding an additional stall to this existing garage is an appropriate project to help make this garage more convenient for modern vehicles. Since it is below grade, only the overhead door and front wall are visible. Even though the guidelines would require that the horizontal elements in the addition align with the existing garage, this will not be possible with the existing topography. Staff finds this step acceptable. It also appears that the owner may intend to add a window to the north wall of the new garage. Staff finds that appropriate and suggests it is a small rectangular window, similar to the proposed clerestory windows, but with brickmold trim since it is set in a concrete wall. Any other window may require further review. The proposed outbuilding is a chicken coop design that the owner has been discussing with staff for many years. The original inspiration photo (attached below) shows a typical agricultural building with small windows and board and batten siding. More recently, the owner has found that the house, built in 1908 appears similar to a Sears Catalog house from that year. It may be an adaptation of this or a similar design. That 1908 Sears Catalog also includes a design for a chicken coop which is the new inspiration for this outbuilding. It has a lap siding, which works better with the house, and larger windows. These catalog images are included below. Staff finds this type of building with two opposing and asymmetrical shed roofs, the clerestory windows, and siding and trim more similar to the house are appropriate for this outbuilding. Staff does suggest that the new outbuilding has typical trim as shown in the catalog image including corner boards, watertable, fascia, and flat casing around doors and windows. The guidelines suggest that outbuilding windows are relatively small and rectangular. The proposed windows are highly decorative and were salvaged from a house with many architectural details. In addition, they are a modern window type, casement, that is only appropriate when it already exists on a historic building (a limited number of Craftsman and some Tudor Style buildings may have casement windows for instance). Otherwise, the guidelines disallow their use. The owner salvaged these windows and hopes to use them, with this likely the final opportunity to do so. He intends to use the outbuilding as a workspace and wishes to have a great deal of natural light. Staff would recommend a more simple window but the Commission could approve them through the use of an exception to the guidelines. Staff recommends that the passage doors are fiberglass doors, since the owner does not want to use wood doors, and that they are half-light doors with two or three panels below as is typically found in outbuildings. Finally, a stair handrail and a guardrail at grade above the face of the garage will be required by code. Staff recommends that they are simple black steel balustrades with spindles (when required) that comply with the sizing requirements in the guidelines. Staff does not recommend a painted wood balustrade matching the front porch balustrade on the house. Since the owner will not be able to attend the meeting, he wishes to have our correspondence included in the application materials. It is attached below following the drawings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 10 Bella Vista Place as presented in the application with the following conditions:  The south windows are revised so that they align with the clerestory windows above and the west window is centered in the wall.  Trim is included as described in the staff report  The windows are revised as relatively small and rectangular If the Commission wishes to approve the proposed windows that condition may be similar to the following: • The proposed windows are approved through an exception to the guidelines to in order to bring additional light into the space and reuse historic materials. 10 Bella Vista Place- west façade- photo from 2003 10 Bella Vista Place, West Façade photo from 2017 10 Bella Vista Place- south side taken from SE corner 10 Bella Vista Place- existing garage east elevation- photo from 2017 10 Bella Vista Place- existing garage Original inspiration photo – agricultural outbuilding 10 Bella Vista Place, 2023 aerial image. Face of existing garage noted with arrow While the owner believes the house is not a catalog house (because he has the original drawings) he feels that it may be a variant of a house like this from the 1908 Sears Catalog (the same year as the house’s construction) Image provided by applicant from the 1908 Sears Catalog (the same catalog as the house shown in the previous photo)- top is the design inspiration for the coop structure Proposed windows Proposed windows with storms Photo of 117 Richards Street showing the original installation of the windows in pairs. Proposed clerestory windows SHEET TITLE A-1 SITE PLAN 10 BE L L A V I S T A P L A C E I O W A CI T Y I A 52 2 4 5 NE W G A R A G E F O R MC D O N O U G H RE S I D E N C E MI C H A E L N O L A N , AI A (56 3 ) 50 6 -49 6 5 MI C H A E L @HO R I Z O N - AR C H I T E C T U R E .CO M IS S U E D F O R P E R M I T A N D C O N S T R U C T I O N SHEET INDEX ID A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 Name SITE PLAN GARAGE FLOOR PLAN GARAGE SHED PLAN ELEVATIONS SECTION TYPICAL WALL SECTIONS 16 ' 28' DOOR SCHEDULE ID D02 D06 D07 Quantity 3 1 1 DOOR W 3' 9' 10' HT 6'-8" 8' 8' GLZ HW SET SECURITY NOTES WINDOW SCHEDULE - SEE MANUFACTURERS QUOTE FOR SIZES ID W02 W03 W04 Quantity 9 1 3 Width (Nominal) 2'-4" 3' 2'-6" Height (Nominal) 3'-8" 2' 1' NOTES SCALE: 1" = 20'1 SITE 0 10'20'40' SHEET TITLE A-2 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN 10 BE L L A V I S T A P L A C E I O W A CI T Y I A 52 2 4 5 NE W G A R A G E F O R MC D O N O U G H RE S I D E N C E MI C H A E L N O L A N , AI A (56 3 ) 50 6 -49 6 5 MI C H A E L @HO R I Z O N - AR C H I T E C T U R E .CO M IS S U E D F O R P E R M I T A N D C O N S T R U C T I O N 12345678910111213141516171819202122 UP DO W N W03 D02 D06 D07 6' 5' 10 ' 1 A-5 5 A-4 4 A-4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 FOUNDATION PLAN 0 2'4'8' SHEET TITLE A-3 GARAGE SHED PLAN 10 BE L L A V I S T A P L A C E I O W A CI T Y I A 52 2 4 5 NE W G A R A G E F O R MC D O N O U G H RE S I D E N C E MI C H A E L N O L A N , AI A (56 3 ) 50 6 -49 6 5 MI C H A E L @HO R I Z O N - AR C H I T E C T U R E .CO M IS S U E D F O R P E R M I T A N D C O N S T R U C T I O N 910111213141516171819202122 UP W02 W02 W02 D02 W02 W02 W02 W02W02 W02 D02 26' 16 ' 8' - 1 1 " 3' - 1 0 " 3' - 3 " 8'-6"9'8'-6" 3' 5' 5' 3' 3'-3"3'-10"5'5'8'-11" 1 A-5 5 A-4 4 A-4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 COOP SHED FLOOR PLAN 0 2'4'8' SHEET TITLE A-4 ELEVATIONS 10 BE L L A V I S T A P L A C E I O W A CI T Y I A 52 2 4 5 NE W G A R A G E F O R MC D O N O U G H RE S I D E N C E MI C H A E L N O L A N , AI A (56 3 ) 50 6 -49 6 5 MI C H A E L @HO R I Z O N - AR C H I T E C T U R E .CO M IS S U E D F O R P E R M I T A N D C O N S T R U C T I O N CONCRETE FOUNDATION GRADE (TBD) 8' 10' SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"3 COOP SOUTH ELEVATION 0 8'16'24' SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"4 COOP NORTH ELEVATION 0 8'16'24'SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"5 COOP EAST ELEVATION 0 8'16'24' SHEET TITLE A-5 SECTION 10 BE L L A V I S T A P L A C E I O W A CI T Y I A 52 2 4 5 NE W G A R A G E F O R MC D O N O U G H RE S I D E N C E MI C H A E L N O L A N , AI A (56 3 ) 50 6 -49 6 5 MI C H A E L @HO R I Z O N - AR C H I T E C T U R E .CO M IS S U E D F O R P E R M I T A N D C O N S T R U C T I O N -11'-4 1/4" -1 FOUNDATION -11'-4 1/4" -1 FOUNDATION ±0" 1 1st FLOOR ±0" 1 1st FLOOR +8' 2 ROOF +8' 2 ROOF SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 COOP SECTION 0 2'4'8' 1 Jessica Bristow From:scott mcdonough <mcdonoughscott1@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 6, 2024 12:30 PM To:Jessica Bristow Cc:Anne Russett Subject:Re: 10 Bella Vista Place Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** I appreciate that, Jessica, but unfortunately DVIP board meetings are the same nights as Hist. Prez. and I don't see next month being any different. We simply have too much going on right now, and that has to be my priority. If you would, just include my correspondences in these email as my statement. Specifically, the Sears and Roebuck house and chicken house in the same 1908 catalog. I realize the size of the windows is a stretch, but they are from the same era and architecture. AND, they are being repurposed. Please ask the board to envision extremely sophisticated chickens inhabiting this space. Their stature as "chickens on the edge of town," allowed them to demand more sunlight. :) Thanks, Scott On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 12:02:17 PM CST, Jessica Bristow <jbristow@iowa-city.org> wrote: Scott, You had wanted to wait last month so that you can address the Commission about the windows. Let me know if you would rather defer to December. Also, if you want to provide a statement to the Commission instead of attending, I would just need that statement by noon on the day of the meeting in order to get it printed to give them at the meeting. Since City offices are closed on Monday, I will need to publish this agenda tomorrow. I will send you a copy of the staff report for your project. Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner (she/her) 319 356 5243 2 From: scott mcdonough <mcdonoughscott1@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 11:37 AM To: Jessica Bristow <JBristow@iowa-city.org> Cc: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: 10 Bella Vista Place ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi Jessica and Anne, The photos are the supplemental stuff. I have nothing else to include. I have DVIP board at the same time as the HP meeting. We have some heavy stuff to sort through this month so I will probably have to miss the HP meeting. Let me know if you need anything else from me. Thanks, Scott On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:13:52 AM CST, Jessica Bristow <jbristow@iowa-city.org> wrote: 3 Let me clarify: I have the photos you sent on October 3. It was not clear to me if that was the supplemental material you were talking about or if it was something else. Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner (she/her) 319 356 5243 From: Jessica Bristow Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 10:54 AM To: scott mcdonough <mcdonoughscott1@yahoo.com> Cc: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: 10 Bella Vista Place Scott, I am getting your project ready for the Commission meeting next week (11/14). I just realized that I forgot to ask you for the supplemental material you had. Can you please send it? Thank you, Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner (she/her) 319 356 5243 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Staff Report November 6, 2024 Historic Review for HPC24-0093: 705 Oakland Avenue General Information: Owner: Monica Dalton Contact person: Peter Correll, peter@icmartin.com District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: The owner is completing a kitchen remodel project which includes a rear addition that is created by fully enclosing the existing rear porch which has been partially enclosed. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Property History: This single-story gable roof house is a bungalow, built ca. 1918. The entrance is centered on the gable end, with a broad heavy porch. The porch features heavy masonry piers supporting battered columns associated with this style and the roofline repeats the main roof on the house. Exterior cladding is of narrow replacement siding. The windows are cottage-style windows The house is similar to many mail order houses. Detailed Project Description: This project alters the existing rear porch on the house, creating an addition for a kitchen remodel. Much of the porch will be demolished, leaving the existing brick porch piers and the shed roof. The flooring and walls will be reconstructed. Windows matching the existing kitchen windows will be installed in the south and west walls of the addition. The existing solid wood panels between the porch piers will either remain or be replaced with new wood. The siding and trim will match the existing house. Drawings are included. Guidelines: 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 building or buildings of similar architectural style. Section 4.14 Wood recommends: • 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. • For many applications, fiber cement board is an approved substitute for wood provided the fiber cement board is smooth faced with no simulated wood grain. Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint recommends: • Matching key horizontal “lines” on the existing building, such as water table, eave height, window head height and band boards, in order to provide continuity between the addition and the historic structure. • Constructing an addition foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation in color, texture, unit size, and joint profile. • Applying siding to a new addition that appears similar in size, shape, texture, and material to the existing siding on the historic building. • Using windows that are of a similar type, proportion and divided light pattern as those in the original structure. • Following the guidelines for new windows in section 4.13 Windows. • Constructing additions with materials that appear similar to the historic siding, trim, moldings, and other details of the original building. • It is disallowed to: o leave large expanses of wall surface uninterrupted by windows or doors. o Add space to a structure by enclosing a historic front or side porch. o Use synthetic siding on an addition instead of the historic siding type or a substitute material approved by the HPC, unless an exception is provided by the HPC. Analysis: In Staff’s opinion, reconfiguring this rear porch is an appropriate opportunity to create an addition to the kitchen, especially since the existing foundation (porch piers and wood panels instead of open skirting) and the existing roof will remain. The wall structure will be completely replaced. Wood windows matching the existing kitchen windows will be installed with the head and sill aligned with the existing windows. There will be no window in the north wall, however this is the new location for the refrigerator and it will not be visible. Staff finds that the window configuration and type with comply with the guidelines. The drawings include a note that there will be lap siding and trim to match the existing. This house currently has metal siding covering the historic siding and trim. The guidelines disallow the use of synthetic siding on an addition unless the project approved through an exception to the guidelines. The property is not eligible for the existing exceptions for siding since it is a contributing property in a historic district. Instead, when the siding is partially revealed during implementation, the siding and trim configuration will be documented and copied with the addition including any watertable, frieze board, flat casing, corner boards, and width of the lap siding. The applicant has agreed to match the historic siding and trim. Either wood or a smooth cement board would be appropriate if they match the lap on the historic wood. If elements are not uncovered during implementation, the project will follow typical trim details for the style of the building. Window product was not submitted for review. The proposal states that the new windows will be wood single-hung windows matching the divided light pattern of the existing windows. Staff finds this sufficient for this project unless the Commission would like to have further review of the windows. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 705 Oakland Avenue as presented in the application with the following conditions:  Historic siding and trim configuration is documented and reviewed by staff. 705 Oakland Avenue- 2024 Google Image 705 Oakland Avenue – existing rear or west elevation 705 Oakland Avenue- existing rear porch 705 Oakdale Ave parcel boundary covered porch kitchen 38' 19 ' 8 ' 14 0 ' Oakdale Ave 42' - 0" parcel boundary 3' 31'8' 5' alley 1. All dimensions are to face of stud or centerline of structure unless otherwise noted (UON). 2. Door and window dimensions are to centerlines of units UON. 3. Verify all dimensions in the field. 4. Protect all existing and new conditions and materials on the site. GENERAL NOTES 2021 International Building / Residential Code, as amended 2021 International Fire Code The following codes can be found under the Building/Residential Code above. They have been amended to align with State of Iowa Codes. 2021 International Mechanical Code 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code 2020 National Electrical Code 2012 International Energy Conservation Code Iowa City Code State of Iowa Building Codes BUILDING CODES 1. Exterior walls shall be framed to be able to meet R-value requirements. Refer to wall section for exterior wall assembly details. 2. Trusses shall be attached to top plates with approved fasteners. 3. Headers above windows shall be a minimum two-ply material. 4. Maximum riser height on steps is 7-3/4" with a minimum tread depth of 10". Risers shall not vary by more than 3/8". If more than 3 risers must provide a graspable handrail 34"-38" above the nosing of the tread. Handrail ends shall terminate into a post or a wall. If steps more than 30”above grade risers must have solid backs. 5. Required guards shall be not less than 36 inches high, measured vertically above the adjacent walking surfaces Noted on drawings. 6. Required guards shall not have openings which allow passage of a sphere 4 inches (102 mm) in diameter from the walking surface to the required guard height. Triangular opens at the open side of stair, formed by the riser, tread and the bottom rail of a guard, shall not allow passage of a sphere 6”in diameter. 7. Guards on the open side of stairs shall not have openings that allow passage of a sphere 4-3/8”in diameter. CODE REQUIREMENTS Sheet No.©2023 Scale Project North Revisions As indicated G.0 Notes & Site Plan 10.07.2024 Da l t o n K i t c h e n R e m o d e l MA R T I N C O N S T R U C T I O N 70 5 O a k l a n d A v e Io w a C i t y , I A 5 2 2 4 0 1" = 20'-0"1 Site Plan G.0 Notes & Site Plan A.1 Floor Plans & Schedules A.2 Exterior Elevations & Wall Section SHEET LIST DN DN Porch Kitchen No work in this area No work in this area No work in this area Opening Maximize Remove existing ceiling finish in porch A.2 3 No work in this area No work in this area No work in this area REF. Kitchen 4 A.2 A.2 2 W1 W1 install & vent oven hood 3' - 1 1 3 / 4 " ± 6' - 3 1/2" ± 1. Demo all cabinets, countertops and fixtures to coordinate w/ new kitchen plan. 2. Leave existing windows in kitchen in place. 3. Demo walls and windows in back porch. Roof above should remain in place. DEMOLITION NOTES 1. Review final light fixture, outlets, switch locations with owner 2. See cabinet drawings for detailed plans & elevations FLOOR PLAN NOTES Sheet No.©2023 Scale Project North Revisions 1/4" = 1'-0" A.1 Floor Plans & Schedules 10.07.2024 Da l t o n K i t c h e n R e m o d e l MA R T I N C O N S T R U C T I O N 70 5 O a k l a n d A v e Io w a C i t y , I A 5 2 2 4 0 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Main Level -Demo Plan 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Main Level -Floor Plan WINDOW SCHEDULE TYPE QTY ROUGH OPENING DESCRIPTION HEAD HEIGHT COMMENTSW H W1 2 2' - 7 1/2" 3' - 0 1/2" Wood single hung 6' - 8" Match head height & grid pattern of existing kitchen windows ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE ROOM NAME FINISH COMMENTSFLOOR BASE WALL CEILING Kitchen hardwood reuse existing painted drywall painted drywall Refinish existing hardwood flooring & install new to match in addition ** First Floor +0' - 0" Lap siding & trim to match existing Existing lap siding Existing shingle roof W1 New single hung window to match existing Existing window Existing wood panel between piers Existing brick pier First Floor +0' - 0" Lap siding & trim to match existing W1 Existing roof New single hung window to match Existing windows Existing masonry foundation Existing lap siding Existing brick pier Existing wood panel First Floor +0' - 0" 1/2" drywall fastened to 2x ceiling joists 16" OC; match existing ceiling height existing gutter, fascia, & exposed rafter tails wood window Exterior Wall Assembly • engineered wood lap siding • weather barrier • 1/2" sheathing • 2x6 stud framing • R-21 min. batt insulation • 1/2" drywall head height existing roof existing brick pier R-49 insulation above ceiling R-30 batt insulation above R-10 spray foam insulation between existing floor joists 6' - 8" Remove existing ceiling finish to insulate cavity existing wood panel between piers Sheet No.©2023 Scale Revisions As indicated A.2 Exterior Elevations & Wall Section 10.07.2024 Da l t o n K i t c h e n R e m o d e l MA R T I N C O N S T R U C T I O N 70 5 O a k l a n d A v e Io w a C i t y , I A 5 2 2 4 0 1/8" = 1'-0"3 West Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0"2 South Elevation 3/8" = 1'-0"4 West wall section Staff Report November 7, 2024 Historic Review for HPC24-0097: 927 South 7th Avenue General Information: Applicant/Owner: Steven Bullard District: Dearborn Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: The project replaces all of the window sashes with Sierra Pacific sash kits which are metal-clad wood. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.13 Windows Property History: The 1 1/2 story brick house is one of six similar bungalows built by L. Palmer in the 900 block of S 7th Avenue between 1927 and 1932. Each varies slightly from the other in design and several have small garages to the rear which appear to have been constructed with the house. There is no garage with the house at 927 South 7th. At the time of the neighborhood survey this group of houses was considered eligible for the National Register as a Historic District. They were never listed as such but instead, were included in the Dearborn Street Conservation District when it was designate in 2002. This brick bungalow features a side gable entry with a heavy porch across the south 2/3 of the facade. It is the only one of the houses with a porch on this side. The porch roof echoes the shape of the house roof with broad eaves and simple braces. Battered porch posts are covered with wood shingles and rest on heavy square brick piers. A shed dormer projects from the center of the roof. Note that the front windows are banded in threes on each side of the entrance and the other windows in the house are in pairs. The gable ends are wood shingled. Alterations to the house are minimal: a deck has been added to the rear and on the interior a wall between the kitchen and dining room has been removed. The original interior wood trim remains as do the floors, windows, and French doors. In 2018 staff approved the replacement of deteriorated shingle siding in the front and rear dormers with a cement board shingle. Trim on the dormers was replaced with Azek. Detailed Project Description: This project replaces all window sashes, which are in a reparable condition, with new metal-clad wood window sashes. The applicant has provided a letter documenting the reasons for his proposal, providing detail photographs of windows and product information on the proposed replacement sashes. Guidelines: Section 4.13 Windows of the guidelines recommends: • Preserving the historic windows by repairing sashes and frames. • Retaining historic window frames and replacing badly deteriorated sashes with new sashes that match the historic ones. • Replacing badly deteriorated windows with new ones that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. • Using new wood windows to replace deteriorated historic wood windows, although 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 sides of the glass, preferably with spacer bars between the panes of insulating glass. Analysis: The current owner purchased this property in 1990. As a finish carpenter, the applicant was able to completely rehabilitate the windows and add weather-stripping and new storm windows soon after they moved in. The window rehabilitation would have been completed 30-34 years ago. Currently the windows experience periods where condensation gathers on the glass, and when it is cold out, will freeze to a frost on the glass. When the frost melts, it gathers in the corners of the sashes. This has led to a deterioration of the interior finish and minor changes in the joints. Plants, animals and people living in buildings and mechanical systems conditioning air all lead to humidity that can cause condensation on any window surface whether historic or modern, single pane or insulated glass unit. The existence of frost forming can be minimized by allowing warm conditioned air in the space to remain in contact with the window surface. Blocking the warm air through the use of individual blinds or heavy curtains is known to exacerbate the situation. Providing good air circulation and removing excess humidity can help prevent excessive front build-up. Drying up accumulated moisture can help prevent deterioration. Historic windows require periodic maintenance including reglazing, re-roping, and maintenance of finishes. In fact, in contact with moisture, finishes require more frequent maintenance. In Staff’s opinion, these historic windows are generally in excellent condition. Staff noted a couple cords that could be replaced and some finish that needed to be reworked or touched up. The glazing putty appeared to be in good condition. Staff noted that a limited number of the joints in the sashes were visible but not to the point where maintenance was necessarily recommended. While the applicant pointed out areas where he said there was wood rot, staff did not find that any wood was to the point where it was deteriorated so that it required replacement and may not be to the point where maintenance was an emergency. The Staff recommendation for these windows is as follows: • Replacing any ropes that are no longer smooth if needed, • Drying out any damp wood and removing excess moisture when it occurs, • Touching up finishes to help prevent moisture infiltration into the wood. • Revising window covering options to allow better air circulation around window openings. • Using internal storm windows if these solutions are not satisfying. Staff does not recommend replacing all of the window sashes in the house because they are not found to be in a condition that is beyond repair. In addition, the seals for modern insulated glass units will fail over time allowing condensation between the panes which causes streaking and clouding of the glass. The industry practice is to replace those windows or sashes when the seals fail. The historic windows would feasibly never require replacement if maintained over time. Replacement of these historic sashes would lead to regular replacement of the modern sashes over the lifetime of the building where maintenance of the historic windows would not. If the Commission finds that any individual sashes are deteriorated beyond repair, staff recommends that only those sashes were approved for replacement. Window photos taken by staff during a site visit are included and followed by a letter from the applicant including his detail photos and sash product information submitted for the application. The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions published an issue of their Alliance Review dedicated to historic windows in 2019. That issue is attached to the end of the documents. Staff Recommendation: (Motions must be made in the affirmative and then voted down if the application is being denied.) Replacement of window sashes as proposed: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 927 South 7th Avenue as presented in the application. An alternative, selective window sash replacement motion could be made if deemed necessary. 927 South 7th Avenue – photo from 2011 917 S. 7th Avenue – north side of front window- lower sash 917 S. 7th Avenue – north side of front window- upper sash 917 S. 7th Avenue – south end of same window grouping – showing metal T weather- stripping at arrow 917 S. 7th Avenue – Center of same window grouping – sill 917 S. 7th Avenue – center of south-facing window grouping – jamb at meeting stile 917 S. 7th Avenue – center of south-facing window grouping – jamb at sill Composites: The New Replacement Window 22 Window Repair and Restoration Basics 16Common Window (Industry) Myths Saving Windows, Saving Money: Evaluating The Energy Performance of Window Retrofi t and Replacement 8What They’re Saying on NAPC-L: Cost Of Repairing vs. Replacing Wood Windows 4 12 25 38A Proposed Approach for the Small Project State News A Quarterly Journal of the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Fall 2019 WINDOWSWINDOWS 28 Storm Windows 20 Doing More Than Saving Windows 32 Our Values and Power Over Window Replacement Proposals 34 Tools for the On-Line Preservationist 36 Spotlight on a Preservation Organization Follow us on CONTACT NAPC AT: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Stephanie Paul stephanie@napcommissions.org PROGRAM ASSISTANT Marie Snyder marie@napcommissions.org NAPC is seeking volunteers to help advance its mission of providing education and technical assistance to local preservationists, particularly those involved in the work of local preservation commissions. Volunteers may serve on a variety of committees and in other capacities that take advantage of their individual skills and experiences. Editorial and produc- tion work on The Alliance Review, membership recruitment and retention, resources development, education programs and technical assistance are just a few of the possibilities. Join us today to make a difference in the future of preservation by contacting NAPC at 757-802-4141 or director@napcommissions.org. NAPC STAFF: COVER IMAGE A window repair specialist works to restore windows on the historic Carnegie Library in Auburn, Washington. The project was funded in part by a local grant from 4Culture. Credit: Robert Smith the All current NAPC members who serve as city staff to preservation commissions are encouraged to distribute articles in The Alliance Review to commission members and other staff and elected offi cials within your member organization. NAPC can provide additional digital copies of The Alliance Review to members of your commission. Simply email us at director@napcommissions.org with your commission member’s name and email address. 2019 BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Up d a t e d : 1 2 . 1 9 . 1 9 KATHERINE ADAMS Washington Architectural Foundation Washington, D.C. DEBORAH ANDREWS City of Portland Maine NATHAN BEVIL Ohio History Connection Ohio BETSY BRADLEY Spokane Historic Preservation Commission/Goucher College Historic Preservation Program Washington TIM FRYE New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission New York WALTER GALLAS City of Baltimore Maryland BRIANA PAXTON GROSICKI PlaceEconomics Georgia JAMES HEWAT City of Boulder Colorado JACQUELINE JOHNSON Initiatives of Change Virginia MICHAEL KOOP Minnesota State Historic Preservation O ce Minnesota CAROLINE LABINER Harvard Heights Historic Preservation and Windsor Square Overlay Zone Boards California PAULA MOHR Iowa Department of Cultural A airs Iowa J. TODD SCOTT King County Historic Preservation Program Washington MATT SYNATSCHK Land Use Consultant Texas PHIL THOMASON Thomason and Associates Tennessee PATRICIA BLICK Quapaw Quarter Association Arkansas | Chair CORY KEGERISE Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Pennsylvania | Chair-Elect MELINDA CRAWFORD Preservation Pennsylvania Pennsylvania | Secretary COLLETTE KINANE Raleigh Historic Development Commission North Carolina | Treasurer The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) is governed by a board of directors composed of current and former members and staff of local preservation commissions and Main Street organizations, state historic preserva- tion offi ce staff, and other preservation and planning professionals, with the Chair, Chair-Elect, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chairs of the board committees serving as the Board’s Executive Committee. OFFICERS BOARD MEMBERS A quarterly journal with news, technical assistance, and case studies relevant to local historic preservation commissions and their staff. CONTACT NAPC AT: tel (757) 802-4141 director@napcommissions.org www.napcommissions.org PO Box 1011 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 This issue is focused on several basic items about historic windows, primarily wood windows and the reasons (or excuses) people may have for replacing them wholesale. Oftentimes that’s the best option, but, with the right guidance and resources, historic wood windows can be repaired for a fraction of the cost of replacing them with something similar. We start with a recent question about them on our listserv, NAPC-L, and follow that with a summary of the Preservation Green Lab’s extensive study on retrofi tting windows. Then we have a few window basic features about the myths of replacing windows, how to repair and restore, and what the future looks like for composite window materials. We take an alternative look at reviewing window replacements for anyone who has that task, and we learn about a wonderful window cooperative program in Springfi eld, Massachusetts. We’re debuting a couple of new features in this issue. The fi rst is “Tools for the Online Preservationist,” and we hope to present a new one in every future issue. The second is meant to spark discussion amongst preservation- ists, whether professional staff or volunteer commissioners. We’re calling it “What if we thought further about…” If you feel compelled to respond to it, please do so on NAPC-L. Finally, we’re excited to an- nounce the call for nominations for the Commissions Excellence Awards in this issue. We hope you will nominate your local commission or a valued employee for one of the awards. As always, we welcome feedback on The Alliance Review and suggestions for future topics. . In this Issue BY J. TODD SCOTT, THE ALLIANCE REVIEW EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Page 3The Alliance Review | Fali 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions A recent question from the NAPC listserv with various responses, many of which are covered in more depth in this issue. From Scott Slagor, Preservation Planner, City of Ypsilanti I know that in the long run it is always better to repair than replace for a myriad of reasons. My challenge is convincing property owners. I have a property owner who wants to replace 15 wood windows. They claim their energy bills are too high and that repairing the windows would be too expensive but have not actually compared the cost of repairing. They are proposing spending over $25,000 on new windows. I suspect they would save money by repairing the windows and installing storms. Are there recent studies/reports to back me up? A lot of our supporting window articles are ten or twenty years old and the window replacement companies claim to have advanced their technol- ogy since then. If the HDC denies the window replacement, I suspect there will be backlash, so I want to be able to provide the most up-to-date information possible. From Marygrace L. Goddu, Historic Preservation Officer, City of Olympia It’s a long way from a “study” but in Olympia we have done a simple cost estimate exercise, asking local companies that do restoration and repair to es- timate their cost given a simple, standard scenario, so we can help homeowners with what to expect in terms of costs to repair/restore. We included the cost to create a storm window as well. It didn’t take long to email four local companies for cost esti- mates and put together averages. Costs are likely to vary around the country, but for what it’s worth: In the Olympia area, complete restoration of a double-hung six-over-one wood sash window in re- ally poor condition would average about $1,100 per window. For more typical repairs, costs would run about $800 per window. Adding a wood storm window would cost about $450. An estimate for 15 windows plus storms might be in the range of $20k, on the high side, well below the estimate for all new vinyl. This does not take into account the added bonus of long-term life-cycle value of the wood versus vinyl. A last note: By our estimates, appropriate wood window replacements in our area run about $1000 per window, installed, for the same sce- nario as above (6 over 1 double hung). These of course can be made with double-glazed panes, eliminating the cost for storms. From Katrina Ringler, Grants Manager / CLG Coordinator, Kansas Historical Society The Cost Comparison Tool commissioned by the City of Hutchinson, KS has been pretty helpful for at least comparing options in our region. There are versions for both residential and commercial buildings. See https://hutchgov.com/1513/Cost- Comparison-Tool. What They’re Saying on NAPC-L: Cost Of Repairing vs. Replacing Wood Windows Page 4 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation CommissionsPage 4 From Vicki Birenberg, AICP, Certified Local Government Program and Planning Coordinator, Kentucky Heritage Council This popular window replacement graphic (Figure 1) has been in circulation for quite a number of years now, and our office still uses it. I do not know if it has been updated (but I would be interested in getting a copy if it has). From Dan Brown, Historic Sites Program Director, Tennessee Historical Commission There are NAPC publications on historic window replacement myths, online sources, and window repair reasons why- also an informational sheet with graphics. http://napcommissions.org/technical- assistance/ From Sean Denniston, Clark County (WA) Historic Preservation Commission Of course the windows installer says that. I think that in these cases, it is best to ensure that the owner has actual information instead of just a vague notion of “expensive.” The big obstacle is the time issue. Restoring looks great over the life- cycle when you show that those new windows will need to be replaced over and over while the wood windows can continue to be restored. The problem is that most owners don’t care about life-cycle costs. We recently had a building come through our com- mission and the fact that they would spend more money over time simply didn’t matter because they could only consider first costs. From John Smoley, Ph.D., Development Services Division, City of Minneapolis To Sean’s point about life cycle cost, check out the flyer (Figure 2) that I received in the mail several nights ago. I’d be curious to ask a window replace- ment sales rep the typical span of time before they go back to past clients & try to sell them replace- ment windows all over again. Cr e d i t : V i c k i B i r e n b e r g Figure 1 Page 5The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions From Tim Askin, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Commission, City of Milwaukee I’m surprised “Saving Windows, Saving Money” hasn’t come up yet! Tested in all the major climate zones of the continental US. SAVING WINDOWS, SAVING MONEY” – We’ll be sure this is on our website under resources and send you the link. (See the article in this issue to get the link). From Lisa Craig, Lodi Historical Society Annapolis MD completed energy audits on 11 con- tributing buildings which resulted in reports stating it would take 30+ years to recover investment in new windows. I have some slides in a PowerPoint about this. Contact me offline at lcraiggroup@gmail.com if you’d like information. Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f D e s M o i n e s P a r t n e r s h i p . Figure 2: Coupon for new windows! Cr e d i t : J o h n S m o l e y Page 6 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions JULY 22-26, 2020 NAPC FORUM 2020 PRESERVATION COAST TO COAST TACOMA, WASHINGTON Homeowners and design professionals seeking to upgrade the performance and efficiency of existing windows are faced with many choices—from simple, low cost, do-it-yourself solutions such as window films and weather stripping to replacing older windows with new ones that require investments costing tens of thousands of dollars. Often these decisions are made without a clear under-standing of the range of options available, an evaluation of the ability of these options to provide energy and cost savings, or proper consideration for the historic character of the existing windows. By National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Preservation Green Lab Saving Windows, Saving Money: Evaluating The Energy Performance of Window Retrofit and Replacement This is an excerpt from a report produced by the Preservation Green Lab in 2012. This publication was devel- oped under a grant from the National Park Service and the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Park Service or the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training. This study builds on previous research and ex- amines multiple window improvement options, comparing the relative energy, carbon, and cost savings of various choices across multiple climate regions. Results of this analysis demonstrate that a number of existing window retrofit strategies come ver y close to the energy performance of high- performance replacement windows at a fraction of the cost. Key Findings Retrofit measures can achieve performance results comparable to new replacement windows. There are readily-available retrofit measures that can achieve energy savings within the range of savings expected from new, high performance replacement windows. This challenges the com- mon assumption that replacement windows alone provide the greatest benefit to homeowners. Figure 1 shows that for all cities, at least one and often two of the selected measures can achieve energy savings within the range of savings ex- pected from new, high performance replacement windows. Specifically, interior window panels, exterior storm windows combined with cellular Page 8 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Figure 1: Note: Percentage savings are not intended to predict actual savings. Instead, the results are meant to be used to evaluate the relative performance of measures where other more cost-effective energy saving strategies have been implemented first. Cr e d i t : P r e s e r v a t i o n G r e e n L a b blinds, and in some cases even exterior storm windows alone fall within the range of performance for replacement windows. Almost every retrofit option offers a better return on investment than replacement windows. Energy savings alone should not influence deci- sions to upgrade windows without consideration of initial investment. For all climates, the cost analysis shows that new, high performance windows are by far the most costly measure, averaging approximately $30,000 for materials, installation, and general construction commonly required for an existing home. In cold climates, all other retrofit measures, with the exception of weather stripping and heat reducing surface films, offer a higher average return on investment when compared to new, efficient replacement windows. In hot climates, all of the study retrofit measures of- fer a better average return on investment than new windows, with the exception of weather stripping. Study Objectives and Approach In recent years, awareness around energy use and its financial and environ-mental impacts have placed buildings in the spotlight. Residential buildings alone are responsible for approximately 20 percent of total U.S. energy use and carbon dioxide emissions. The vast majority of these build- ings are single-family homes where heating and cooling represent the largest use of energy. Win- dows are one important aspect of how heat loss (and gain) affects a home’s operational efficiency and cumulatively represent over $17 billion in an- nual U.S. house-hold expenditures on heating and cooling. Page 9The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions In this study, computer simulation is used to model energy use in a typical, prototype home both before and after window improvements. Several commercially available window improvement op- tions were analyzed ranging from simple, low cost applications to more expensive options represent- ing the highest energy performance on the market. The study analyzed energy, cost, and carbon savings for seven selected measures: weather strip- ping existing windows; interior window panels; exterior storm windows; insulating cellular shades; a combination of exterior storm windows and insulating cellular shades; interior-applied surface films; and new, high performance replacement windows. Variations in climate and regional energy grids were addressed by evaluating the home’s per- formance in five U.S. cities—Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, and Portland. A thorough cost analysis allowed for the comparison of average return on investment for each window option in each of the cities. Recommendations and Conclusion Findings from this study demonstrate that upgrad- ing windows (specifically older, single-pane mod- els) with high performance enhancements can result in substantial energy savings across a variety of climate zones. Selecting options that retain and retrofit existing windows are the most cost-effective way to achieve these energy savings and to lower a home’s carbon footprint. Due to the cost and complexity of upgrading windows, however, these options are not likely to be the first inter vention that homeowners undertake. For many older homes, non-window-related interventions— including air sealing, adding insulation, and up- grading heating and cooling systems—offer easier and lower cost solutions to reducing energy bills. Figure 2: Due to high utility costs and high heating and cooling loads, window upgrade options in Boston generally produced the highest return on investment of any of the regions studied. Simple financial analysis such as Return on Investment (ROI) provides a decision making frame-work to allow informed choices between options for a given location. Page 10 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions In addition to providing insights into the energy performance and investment costs of window options, the study’s findings reinforce several additional benefits in choosing to retrofit existing windows rather than replace them. Retrofits extend the life of existing windows, avoid production of new materials, and reduce waste. Additionally, wood windows are often a character defining feature of older homes, and conser ving them helps to preserve the historic integrity of a home. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treat- ment of Historic Properties and the Secretary of the Interior’s Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings offer guidance on how best to approach the preservation of win- dows in historically designated homes, or homes that may be eligible for listing. Selecting the most appropriate measure for upgrading windows requires a detailed under- standing of climate and energy costs in addition to window performance and installation costs. This study provides a valuable analysis of these variables that can be used to help inform the deci- sion to improve the energy performance of and reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from older and historic single-family homes. To view the full report, go to https://www.ncptt. nps.gov/blog/saving-windows-saving-money/. Figure 3 Page 11The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Common Window (Industry) Myths This article is an updated version of a previous NAPC publication. Check out the NAPC website for this and other similar briefs: http://napcommissions.org/technical-assistance/. The Myth: Vinyl is “maintenance free” (and will outlast wood). “Maintenance free” is a popular term used by vinyl window manufacturers to promote their use; but since vinyl is susceptible to seasonal fluctuations, weathering, and constant operation, this claim is misleading. Vinyl windows are made with stock parts that quickly become outmoded, making them difficult, if not impossible, to repair if a spring breaks or a seal fails. Typically, the whole unit must be replaced if a single part is compromised and, given that the average life span of double-glazed window seals are about 12-15 years, you end up paying a lot (and often) for that “maintenance free” claim. In addition, vinyl, more so than wood, metal or fiberglass, is prone to warping and fading in high temperatures. Historic wood windows, by contrast, were built to be repaired (piecemeal) over time. Developed in a world without Home Depot, wood windows were once comparatively expensive and not readily available off-the-shelf. Older wood sash windows are fairly simple constructions which could be easily maintained and repaired, usually with basic home- owner skills. Keep your historic old-growth wood windows well glazed and painted and they can last 100 years or more. Want to repair a historic wood window? Tools, parts, and materials can be found at your local hardware store; know-how online. The Myth: Old wood windows = high heating bills. Replacement window manufacturers will often compare their product to a historic wood window that has not been restored or maintained, and a deteriorated window (of any type) will undoubtedly be drafty and inefficient. In most cases, however, a well-maintained, properly functioning, weather- stripped wood window combined with a quality storm window will have the same (or better) insulat- ing properties as a new double-glazed replacement window. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, most of your house’s heat loss and air infiltration happens through the roof, walls and floor; only 10-15% of energy loss is through the windows. Notably, the single-pane glass isn’t the issue here. Most of that heat loss is due to problems with the window surrounds or mis-fitted sash. Wood itself is a better insulator than any other available window material. Keep the window in good repair, fit it correctly in its jamb, caulk joints and seams, add an exterior (or interior) storm window, and your historic window will be just as energy efficient as anything on the market today. The Myth: Replacement windows are the more sustainable option. With growing awareness of climate change and increased demand for sustainable building materi- als, replacement window manufacturers often tout the energy savings associated with their product, offering their replacement windows as a “green” choice. The argument that a replacement window is inherently more sustainable than a restored wood window is, at best, problematic. As discussed above, a properly maintained wood window com- Page 12 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions bined with a quality storm window can reach the same levels of energy efficiency as any new win- dow available today. As importantly, the embodied energy of the existing wood window automatically makes it the more sustainable option. Repairing and maintaining an existing window demands less material, less labor, and has less of an industrial and transportation impact on the environment than a new window ever could. Also as mentioned above, historic wood windows built with old-growth lumber and quality craftsman- ship, will last considerably longer than replace- ment models, mostly because old-growth wood is durable and rot resistant, and the windows are made to be easily repaired. The same can’t be said for vinyl or new-growth wood replacement windows. Not only are the new window construc- tions more complex and not typically reparable, but new-growth wood is more susceptible to rot and deterioration. So even when you replace like-for- like, the window’s durability, and sustainability, is diminished. The Myth: Old wood windows are highly susceptible to rot. Even old-growth wood windows will deteriorate if they are not maintained. Any natural material that is left exposed to weather and sunlight will begin to break down. However, basic maintenance including cleaning, painting, caulking, and glazing will ensure a long-lasting window. Often, a wood window may appear to be in rough shape, when a more thorough investigation reveals that only the paint has failed, or the sash needs a little wood repair work, or glazing has cracked in places and needs replacing. If a wood window has become inoperable, surprisingly often it’s because previ- ous homeowners didn’t know how to maintain it and ended up painting it shut. (At least the paint protected it from the elements.) Just keep in mind that historic wood windows have a high quality Air leakage in the typical home. Page 13The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions of craftsmanship and were constructed from old growth lumber; they were built to last. Invest a little time and effort, you’ll be richly rewarded. The Myth: Why restore an old wood window if it has to be covered with a modern storm window? Storm windows have actually been in common use for over a century, originally made of wood and applied seasonally. But it’s true that modern exterior storm windows can conceal the character of historic window sash. Helpfully, there are many quality options available in today’s market that are more appropriate for historic buildings. Interior storm windows, which achieve the same energy efficiency with no impact on historic character, are increasingly popular and widely available. The Myth: Replacement windows look just like historic wood windows. When comparing the two side-by-side, this is a fairly easy myth to debunk. A window industry rep will often make this claim when the snap-in grids or simulated divided lites in a replacement model match the existing muntin design of the original wood windows. But thin, flat snap-in grids or simu- lated divided lites tend to be more two-dimensional and almost always look inserted or applied. They are shallower in depth, create different visual cues with shadow and texture, and typically lack the detailed profiles found on historic windows. Materi- als such as vinyl or synthetic cladding are shiny, glossy or overly smooth, presenting a colder and newer appearance than that of traditional wood. In addition, installation of replacement windows typi- cally involves additional framing that reduces the rough opening of the window, ultimately increas- ing the heaviness of surrounding trim. All of these differences, no matter how individually minor, will cumulatively impact the character of a historic build- ing in very noticeable ways. The Myth: It is more expensive to restore an old wood window than to replace it. The cost of restoring a historic wood window can vary widely, and there is no guarantee that restor- ing a wood window will be immediately cheaper than replacing it. Studies have shown, however, that the actual investment return for new replace- ment windows can take decades. In that span of time, it is likely that these windows will have to be Deterioration due to inadequate paint coverage over the years. This window was ultimately replaced. Page 14 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions contractor or window restoration specialist should be able to identify lead paint and treat it appropriately. Often, stable lead paint can be encapsulated with lead-free paint to comply with applicable laws. With proper precautions and safety measures, historic wood windows with lead paint can be made safe for daily use. For more information on lead paint hazards in historic buildings, refer to Preservation Brief 37: Appropriate Methods of Reducing Lead-Paint Hazards in Historic Housing from the National Park Service: http://www.nps.gov/history/ hps/TPS/briefs/brief37.htm replaced again, since most replacement windows have a maximum lifespan of 20 years. Historic wood windows that have lasted 100 years will last another 100 years if properly repaired and maintained. Investing more to restore a historic wood window, and then regularly maintaining it, is far more cost effective in the long run. The Myth: Old wood windows have lead paint and should be discarded. The first half of that sentence is probably true. Any house built before 1978 likely contains some lead paint. That was the year lead was removed from nearly all commercial paints by law. However, with appropriate training, the right materials and a fair amount of caution, lead paint can be removed from historic sash without posing serious health hazards. Inexpensive lead test kits are available at local hardware stores, and local municipalities often have guidelines for safe and effective lead-paint removal. The key is to avoid sanding or scrap- ing areas of lead paint, causing the paint to be- come airborne, flakey or dust-like. If breathed-in or ingested, the lead in the paint dust could build up in the bloodstream and cause dangerous health issues. If you don’t feel comfortable learning how to remove lead paint safely, an experienced Page 15The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Window Repair and Restoration Basics The good news is that older windows can be repaired! Traditional windows are made from individual parts, which are pieced together to make the window. Each piece of the window can be individually repaired or even replaced. If the glass is broken, you can replace it. If the bottom rail or sill is rotted, you can repair or replace them. All is not lost! Just because the condition of a window is poor does not mean that it needs to be replaced. This arti cle is an excerpt from “Considering the Repair, Retrofi t and Replacement of Historic Windows” produced by Preservati on Pennsylvania. The project was supported by a grant from the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservati on Offi ce via the CLG program and was made possible by cooperati on of the Boroughs and HARBs of Gett ysburg, Bellefonte and Mercersburg. To see the full publicati on, visit their website at www.preservati onpa.org. Sometimes it is overwhelming to look at your win- dows and imagine tackling the project of fi xing them. It seems easier to just call someone who will come and replace them with new ones. While that may be easier, in most cases, it’s not better. Start by looking at your windows and determining what condition they are really in. Use a notebook or spreadsheet to help you. Go window by window, part by part. Let your inner critic shine and note what’s wrong with each window. Take pictures as you go. You may be surprised to fi nd that your win- dows are not all in horrible condition like the one that fi rst caught your attention. The location of a window on the building often makes a big difference in its condition. Those on the south and west sides of the building, which face the harshest sun, tend to suffer more from peeling paint and dried-out glaz- ing putty, while windows on the north and east sides tend to have more problems with rot from moisture getting trapped in the joints or sitting on fl at surfaces. Talk to a qualifi ed professional who can tell you what needs to be done to address the problems you identifi ed. If you want, they can also give you an estimate to do the work. In the hands of a qualifi ed contractor, repairing your windows can By Preservation Pennsylvania Page 16 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions be just as easy as replacing them. There are a number of things that your contractor can do for you. If the glazing is failing, they can reglaze your windows for you (or you can do it yourself). If ele- ments of the window are deteriorated or failing, they can perform Dutchman or epoxy repairs, or they can replace the individual part – be it a muntin, rail, sill or whole sash – for you. Preservation work is labor intensive as opposed to materials intensive. This means that the money you spend to repair your windows is paying for skilled labor, rather than buying new materials that are having an impact on the environment. Restoration For the most part, routine maintenance and occasional repairs will be sufficient to keep your windows in good condition. However, from time to time (probably every 50-100 years), the layers of paint and grime build up to a point where they are no longer stable, or major repairs are needed. When your windows require restora- tion, your contractor will do the following: Disassemble window unit and remove window sash. They’ll remove the stop that holds the win- dow sash in, and then disconnect the sash cord and weights that allow the window to move up and down. They’ll put a temporary window (or board) in the window opening and take the sash with them back to their shop. Remove existing paint and putty. In their work- shop, they’ll remove the existing paint and glaz- ing putty. Most professionals seem to prefer using steam because it makes relatively quick work of the paint removal without negatively impacting the window sash. Other methods, such as heat or chemical paint strippers, may be acceptable as well. Page 17The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Conduct repairs. Once the paint and glazing compound have been removed, they’ll take the glass out. Then they’ll conduct any necessary repairs, such as gluing and re-pegging joints, replacing broken muntins or damaged rails, or replacing broken glass. In the hands of a qualified carpenter or contractor, any historic window can be fixed. Apply oil-based primer with a brush. After the repairs have been made and the sash has been sanded, they will prepare the wood for primer. This involves the application of a combination of linseed oil and turpentine, often several layers. Once the surface is ready, they’ll apply one coat of oil-based primer with a brush and allow it to dry. Replace the glass and paint. When the primer has dried, they will create a bed of glazing putty to set the glass in, and then install glazing points to hold the glass in place. The window will then be sealed with additional glazing putty. Once the putty has cured, they will prime it using oil-based primer, and then apply two coats of high-quality paint. Reinstall the windows. Before reinstalling the windows, the contractor will make any necessary repairs or modifications to the window frame. They can repair or replace rotted sills or pieces of the frame or trim. They will make sure your pulleys and other hardware are working properly. In addi- tion to prepping, priming and painting the frame, they can add weather stripping, if so desired. Page 18 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions They will then reinstall the window sash, replacing the cords (sometimes with chain upon request) and adjusting the weights, as needed. Some contrac- tors even apply wax to make the windows easier to open and close. If you would like to be able to clean the outside of your window easily, ask your contractor to reinstall the stop using a screw in a threaded barrel so that you can easily remove the stop and swing the sash in for cleaning. Once the restoration is complete, your windows will be as good as new…or better! All lead paint will have been removed, eliminating that problem completely. You’ll have windows that were made to fit your home, from materials that are durable and have no environmental impact. Page 19The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Doing More Than Saving Windows Yes, historic wood windows are worthy of keeping in use for their own right, but Pam Howland and the Old Window Workshop Cooperative demonstrate how this goal can have a wider and even more satisfying impact. Betsy Bradley, NAPC board member, heard about this program at Goucher College, where she teaches in the Historic Preservation Master’s Program, and had the opportunity to visit the Old Window Workshop in March 2019. Betsy, who previously directed the historic preservation program of the City of St. Louis, now sits on the Spokane Historic Landmarks Commission. Pam Howland founded a small business that com- bines saving old growth wood windows from the landfill and empowering women in a safe, supportive workplace. The business links entrepreneurship with a dual mission: a sustainable environment and a more just economy. Her website’s tag line, “Old Windows, New Jobs” sums up the effort to create new econom- ic and educational opportunities for women, as these factors impact reducing poverty and bringing health and safety to their neighborhoods. Pam’s approach is to foster a crew of women to develop the skills of window restoration while being paid to learn the trade. The crew is led by one of their own who excels in teaching and supervising with the goal of owning her own business with other women. Over 10 years of the Old Window Work- shop, 17 women have learned skills and two women are committed to ownership of this business in Springfield, Massachusetts. They are Danisha Garcia and Zobieda Gomez who are strength- ened by the power of being a mother-daughter team. The attraction of being a skilled window repairer is multi-dimensional, from working with the medium to the dignity of completing a job well done, and having the satisfaction of a decent wage. The model is simple: bidding on and winning jobs for window restoration and executing them well. The challenges are real: securing enough jobs to provide consistent, full-time employment for the crew members and training new workers to keep a full crew. Pam relies on the use of converted factory space with the Wellspring Cooperative and donating her time. The Wellspring Coopera- tive, an organization supporting new, community- based, worker-owned companies in inner-city By Betsy Bradley Page 20 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Springfield based on the purchasing power of area anchor institutions is another excellent idea that we can replicate elsewhere. The Old Window Workshop now has its work on several buildings in Springfield, and throughout the western half of Massachusetts. The crew repairs, strengthens and reinstalls historic glazing when possible. Pam’s solution to replacing win- dows in one manufacturing building with large industrial steel sash was the installation of insula- tion panels made of transparent shrink-wrap on both sides of a wood frame. After visiting with Pam, talking with the women window restorers Pam Howland and Tatyanna Cheeks in the production room of the Old Window Workshop, March 2019, Springfield, Massachusetts. and seeing some of the projects early in 2019, I vowed to suggest that a similar program be started where I live. That project is still on my to-do list. But I am devoted to the concept and Pam has offered to mentor others who want to make use of her experience in women-owned, worker-owned reuse of old windows. Can you envision a cooperative window restoration in your community that improves lives and sustains the environment? To learn more about the Old Window Workshop, visit http://www.oldwindowworkshop.com/. Cr e d i t : B e t s y B r a d l e y Page 21The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Composites: The New Replacement Window Design guidelines for most communities place an emphasis on preserving and maintaining original or historic wood windows. Studies by the Preservation Green Lab, Window Preservation Standards Collaborative and others show that keeping or restoring your old-growth wood windows and adding storm windows provides similar or better energy savings than most replacement windows. These studies also show that the cost of installing most replacement windows takes decades to recover the initial investment. Vinyl and vinyl-clad windows also have a high failure rate and often need to be replaced after ten to fifteen years. Phil Thomason is Principal of Thomason and Associates, a historic preservation firm based in Nashville, Tennessee which specializes in design guidelines and design review consultation. Phil also serves on the board of NAPC. A number of window manufacturers are now pro- moting “composite” windows as a better alterna- tive than vinyl, vinyl-clad or aluminum. A recent advertisement in my local newspaper by a lead- ing window company stated: “Over one-third of the windows we replace are vinyl windows. Don’t make the mistake of buying vinyl windows that can warp over time and become difficult to open and close.” In other words, “don’t buy the vinyl windows we used to sell, they don’t last. Buy our new compos- ite windows instead.” Composite windows have been on the market since around 2000 but have only been widely manufactured and promoted within the past decade. Instead of vinyl, composite windows are made from a blend of materials including resin and fiberglass. Some composite materials are also composed of a blend of 40% wood fiber and 60% thermoplastic polymer. Aluminum clad, wood composite windows are also on the market which By Phil Thomason Page 22 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions contain wood fibers and polymers on the inside of the window frame and aluminum on the exte- rior. Composite windows can be purchased in a variety of colors but white is the color most often promoted. Buyers can purchase some composite windows with an optional wood veneer on the interior side of the window but not on the exterior. As with any new product or material on the market homeowners have to weigh the initial cost versus payback on investment. Composite windows are promoted as a better alternative to vinyl and aluminum because of greater energy efficiency and strength and their ability to withstand high temperatures. The unequal expansion and contrac- tion properties of vinyl windows can lead to seal failure and glass condensation. Because of the consistent strength of the frames and glass, com- posite windows are advertised to reduce seal fail- ure and the fogging and condensation between the glass panes. However, they are also more expensive than vinyl and their life expectancy is unknown. Composite windows typically cost 10% to 30% more than vinyl or vinyl-clad windows and they are also more expensive to install. Composite windows are also more eco-friendly than vinyl with fiberglass typically containing around 60% recycled glass. Composite windows are now an acceptable alternative for a number of historic preservation commissions and homeowners. Some compos- ite windows have muntin bar profiles which are consistent with historic sash and casement window designs. If replacement windows are necessary for a historic building, composite windows often get the nod over vinyl, vinyl clad or aluminum clad because of their compatibility with historic wood windows. The historic preservation commissions and review boards in cities such as Indianapolis, El Paso, Jacksonville and Charlotte now approve compatible composite window designs. As with any relatively new product the life ex- pectancy and payback of composite windows is unknown. Composite windows made of aluminum and wood fiber suggests that these materials may be longer lasting than those of resin and fiberglass. Composite windows of fiberglass may also fade over time and require repainting which would be an additional cost, although Composite windows are designed with muntin bar profiles which resemble wood windows much more closely than aluminum, vinyl, or vinyl-clad. Cr e d i t : T h o m a s o n a n d A s s o c i a t e s Page 23The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions The windows on the rear of this building were either missing or deteriorated and the new composite windows were approved by the community’s historic preservation commission. powder coated aluminum can also fade if it is a dark color. The overall cost and payback of any replacement window will always compare unfa- vorably with preserving and maintaining historic wood windows. But for historic houses that have replacement windows which have failed or for new construction in historic districts, composite windows may be worth considering. Some composite windows are designed with wood veneers on the interior of the frame. Cr e d i t : T h o m a s o n a n d A s s o c i a t e s Page 24 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Reviewing Window Replacement: A Proposed Approach for the Small Project Secretary of the Interior’s Standard 6 suggests that without deterioration severe enough to require replacement, a distinctive feature such as a window should be repaired. Judging exactly what constitutes such severe deterioration is no easy task. Fairly deciding what is reasonable rather than just possible can depend not only on the nature of the deterioration but also on the skills locally available to do such work and its cost. Assessing conditions from photos taken by someone who does not understand what critical conditions to focus on can further challenge the reviewer charged with evaluating a replacement request. It is not surprising that many communities do not create much of a hurdle for those seeking to replace their win- dows in a historically designated property. John Sandor has worked as an architectural historian in the Technical Preservation Services Division of the National Park Service since 1996 reviewing rehabilitation projects seeking certification for federal tax credit and providing assistance on technical aspects of preservation. He previously worked as the architectural coordinator for the WV State Historic Preservation Office and has experience as a preservation consultant and a carpenter. He is a graduate of Carnegie Mellon in architecture. While the assessment of whether or not a window can reasonably be repaired is probably best made in person by someone familiar with the techniques of repair, the task of evaluating the replacement window should be successfully accomplished far more easily. There are two basic questions that need to be addressed by anyone seeking approval for replacement: How will the window be installed and what will the new window look like? The question of installation has to begin with the existing window. Will it to be removed in its entirety back to the rough opening? This means removing the exterior trim, casing or brick molding and the interior casing with all the disruption to the surround- ing materials that can entail. It is, however, the approach that makes possible an installation of a new window that can best match the existing one. Where interiors are missing or interior surfaces are By John Sandor Page 25The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Aluminum clad wood window replacement intended for rough opening installation but here inserted within an existing jamb. Cr e d i t : J o h n S a n d o r being replaced as part of a larger project, with rare exception it is the only approach that should be considered. Far too often the intention is to leave the existing jambs and sill in place, removing only the sash, stops and parting bead. This leaves trim intact both inside and out, and the jambs provide a ready surface for attaching the new window. A new window unit though, has its own jamb and sill, so inserting it within an existing jamb means adding a redundant element of framing. Either glass size or some other element of the framing such as the sash sticking will be smaller than what was in place on the historic window. This will result in an unavoidable compromise in the match of the new window. Many manufacturers make a unit specifically designed for this type of installa- tion in an attempt to minimize that compromise, and these are almost always a better choice than a unit designed for a rough-opening installation when the jamb is being left in place. Such windows are typically referred to as a pocket replacement or insert unit. Leaving the existing jamb in place is popular with homeowners who want to avoid disruption of their interior, and it makes the installation easier for the installer and thus cheaper. It can also make sense where there are fine interior casings that might be damaged by removal and reinstallation, necessary in a rough-opening installation. Since the concern of most local review is limited to the exterior, this ad- vantage may not be a relevant factor in a review. If the only approach to replacement of historic windows that is typically approved is the better- matching rough-opening installation, might more homeowners opt to repair the windows they have? In the end the goal for any window replacement is to match the historic window where one survives. Comparing drawings of both the existing historic window as it exists in the wall assembly to the proposed new window as it will be installed can provide the needed information to judge the match of a replacement window, assuming the reviewer Replacement window designed to be installed within the jamb. It represents about the best that can be accomplished in this way. Original historic window in a row of like houses A wood replacement window in the same row of house showing compromises in the proportion of the components and the way it was installed. Page 26 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions An example showing an original window on the right, with the replacement on the left. You can see just how the left replacement is different, but how it may not matter at a normal viewing distance. is familiar with reading such drawings. When the historic windows have already been replaced, the new replacement should be judged against a window typical of the period of the building. Window replacement is often a stand-alone request coming from a homeowner who will pres- ent no more than a cut sheet of the new window to be used. Without requiring a professional to provide more complete measured drawings of the window in the wall assembly there is another approach that may facilitate an effective review. Most individual applicants are already dealing with a window supplier and installer who will have previously installed the proposed window unit somewhere else in an equivalent wall assem- bly. Thus, rather than getting more extensive draw- ings, a few good photos of the specific proposed window in an equivalent installation in addition to photos of the existing can provide a ready visual comparison between the existing window and the replacement. Of course, the photos of both proposed and replacement need to be clear and large enough to see the proportions and profiles that one would expect to see in person. Instead of trying to judge from comparable drawings whether a ½ inch di- mensional difference will be noticeable in the con- text of the whole assembly, the reviewer can make a visual comparison of the overall appearance and decide if the new window looks sufficiently similar to uphold whatever level of match the local standards require. The homeowner will not be required to secure drawings for a project where architectural services are not otherwise required, and the reviewer can make an informed qualita- tive judgement balancing all the little compromises that any replacement project involving modern manufactured windows will involve. Cr e d i t : J o h n S a n d o r Page 27The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Storm Windows When it comes to the energy performance of windows, two panes are better than one. As a result, windows with double-pane glass are more efficient than those with a single pane of glass. But studies show, it doesn’t matter whether those two panes of glass are installed together as part of a manufactured, insulated unit, or are formed by adding a storm window (exterior or interior) to an existing or historic window. This article is an excerpt from “Considering the Repair, Retrofit and Replacement of Historic Windows” produced by Preservation Pennsylvania. The project was supported by a grant from the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office via the CLG program and was made possible by cooperation of the Boroughs and HARBs of Gettysburg, Bellefonte and Mercersburg. To see the full publication, visit their website at www.preservationpa.org. Storm windows help reduce air leakage and improve the insulating value of existing windows. They can be installed on the interior or exterior side of windows and can be mounted permanent- ly or for seasonal use. Industry guidelines indicate that the addition of a storm window to an existing single-glazed window will reduce the energy loss through the window area by approximately 50%. This savings applies to both heating and cooling. Replacing existing, single-pane, leaky windows with new windows can significantly improve a building’s energy performance and reduce opera- tional CO2 emissions. New high-performance replacement windows were found to provide an annual energy savings between 17 and 29%. However, upfront costs are substantial. Despite their effectiveness, because of their high cost, new high-performance windows offer a poor average rate of return of just 1.7%. Exterior Storm Windows Comparable energy savings are offered by exterior storm windows, especially when used in combination with insulating cellular shades. Exte- rior storm windows alone provide energy savings of 14 to 24%. When used in combination with insulating cellular shades, exterior storm windows provide an energy savings ranging from 19 to 26%. But because the cost of storm windows is By Preservation Pennsylvania Page 28 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation CommissionsPage 28 lower, the average return on investment for exterior storm windows nationwide was 3.5%. Adding the cellular shades increases both efficiency and cost and reduces return on investment slightly to an average of 3.2%. Both of these are approximately double that of the return on investment (1.7%) for high-performance replacement windows. This gen- erally means you are achieving a nearly equiva- lent energy reduction at half the cost by retrofitting your historic windows with exterior storm windows rather than replacing them. Many people find exterior storm windows to be unattractive. And they certainly can be. But there are a number of manufacturers and craftsmen who can make wood or metal storm windows that fit your window well and have a relatively limited visual appearance. It is important that they fit properly, that the meeting rail match the rail on your windows, and that the frame be as thin as possible and painted to match the surrounding window elements. Wood storm windows can be commercially- purchased or custom-made. They can be hinged at the top and open out at the bottom to allow air in when the weather is good; they can be remov- able, going on in the cold months and coming off in the warm months; and they can be partially re- movable, where the frame remains in place year- round, but the glazing panel is removed using toggle clips, and replaced with a screen panel. In addition to wood storms, metal (typically aluminum) storm windows are also available. Like wood windows, these can be curved, arched or otherwise customized to fit your window opening. A number of different types are available, includ- One reason double glazed windows are not preferred is because the seal often breaks, resulting in permanent fogging. Page 29The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions ing: fixed, self-storing (triple-track), inside removal, or outside removal. Depending on your desired aesthetic, operation preference and budget, storm windows can be found or made to suit your needs. Interior Window Panels Exterior storm windows achieve notable energy savings and serve to protect the historic window from the elements. However, interior window panels provide a slightly greater energy savings than exterior storm windows alone and are not visible from the exterior. Interior window panels can also be more easily installed and removed for ventilation or cleaning. Often referred to as interior storm windows, inte- rior window panels were found to provide an en- ergy savings of approximately 14 to 27%. These were especially effective in cold climates, such as Portland, Boston and Chicago, all heating-dom- inated climates like that found in Pennsylvania. With costs comparable to exterior storm windows, interior window panels have an average return on investment of 3.5%, or 3.7% in heating-dominated climates. So, like exterior storm windows, interior window panels allow you to achieve energy reduc- tion comparable to new high-performance replace- ment windows at half the cost. As people become aware of the effectiveness and ancillary benefits of interior window panels, more and more manufacturers and installers are appear- ing. Some use glass, while others use flexible plexi- glass. Some permanently affix the storms, while others have removable inserts. We anticipate that this market will continue to grow as the demand increases. A Note About Storm Windows and Condensation Storm windows can reduce air leakage, which is good when trying to improve the energy efficiency of a home. However, it is important that the humid air that gets caught between a storm window and window is allowed to escape to the outdoors. Whether exterior or interior storms are used, the outer window unit must have weep holes (exterior storm) or allow some air leakage (historic window) to avoid condensation between the panes, and the interior part of the window/storm window pair should be airtight. Exterior wood storms, opened to provide ventilation. Page 30 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Storm windows address a number of the concerns or help achieve many of the goals of those contem- plating window replacements, including: • Energy savings • UV reduction • Reduced heat gain • Noise reduction • Sash protection • Reduced condensation Storm windows have consistently been one of the best ways to preserve historic wood windows. Consider them rather than replacing historic win- dows in your next project. A less compatible exterior metal storm window, as compared with next image. A more compatible exterior metal storm window, as compared with previous image. Window sash damage due to uncontrolled condensation. An interior window panel, or storm window Page 31The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions What If We Thought Further About Our Values and Power Over Window Replacement Proposals As a historic preservation commissioner and practicing preservationist, I’m tired of talking about window replacement in historic buildings. Once I admitted this, I thought about how to take a fresh look at the conversations we have all had with building owners and redevelopers. I thought about our strong stance on keeping historic windows through the lenses of power relationships and our preoccupation with historic windows. Based on the belief that our practices can change within existing preservation frameworks, NAPC will occasionally present these es- says to prompt thinking about a range of effective practices that historic preservation programs can use. We hope that these essays prompt some lively discussion on NAPC-L. You can find Betsy’s bio in a previous article in this issue. Hold on there, you’re thinking. But let’s ponder the arguably most common type of conversations that we have in our work: windows. I have defended historic windows for decades and highly value them myself; but I also recognize that our success rate in convincing property owners to keep their historic windows for any of the good reasons that we can cite is not as high as we wish. If we consider what preoccupation means, we may be considering historic windows with unquali- fied respect or perhaps even overvaluing them. If we are truthful, we value historic and replacement- in-kind windows more than most people we come into contact with. And because we value them so, we arm ourselves with strict historic district stan- dards that we can point to with pride to support our position. In the power differential over historic windows, we have official support and guidance and rely on standards in our defensible decision making. This sends the message to the property owner that they are just wrong about windows, particularly the relative value of new and old windows. We might win the battle over windows, By Betsy Bradley Page 32 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions but have we gained support for the local historic district designation and design review practice? As we think more about how people interact with buildings and derive meaning from them – rather than basking in the beauty and glory of them – we must open up our conversations about windows. A step further in thinking in this direction would have us be less dismissive about what historic building owners value about their windows: ease of opera- tion, not being perceived as the unsolved problem for their home or business, and perhaps part of a major investment in their homemaking and place- keeping that they have agency over. But how can we address windows differently with- out stepping onto that slippery slope of relaxed standards? We might: • Provide more choices linked to access to benefits and grants and thus place the decision making in the hands of the property owner. • Stick to the basics of not disrupting a fenestra- tion pattern and changing the sizes of openings as our standards. • Think about window replacement as part of property ownership, maintenance and manage- ment patterns, rather than just the loss of historic integrity. • Adopt a tiered system of regulation for standard and special windows with different requirements for different types of windows. • Get serious about deconstruction-driven removal of wood and metal windows that can be stored and reused elsewhere. I’m sure we could stop far short of the opposite of our preoccupation with windows – dismissing and under valuing them – and find a middle ground. Stepping away from our early seizing of power over windows decades ago and hanging on to it at all costs provides opportunities to meet more people where they are in their ownership and en- joyment of historic buildings. We will have what we can still define as success: historic windows in place in many of our historic buildings. And in others where they are not present, perhaps we can find another valid measure of success: a building that is cherished and in use. Page 33The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions This is the fi rst of a regular series highlighti ng websites that are useful to the historic preservati on community. Do you have a website that you think would help others? Send your ti ps to Paula Mohr at paula.mohr@iowa.gov for possible use in a future arti cle. If you are reading this issue of The Alliance Review, you’re already invested in the preserva- tion of old windows. But perhaps you want to learn more about why windows look the way they do? Take a “walk” through the Historic Preservation Education Foundation’s online exhibit on the history of window design. What it is: Beginning with examples from the seventeenth century and up through the mid- twentieth century, you’ll learn how glass technol- ogy, concerns about fi re, and widespread use of pattern books infl uenced the design of windows. Each illustrated example is accompanied with a physical description and a history of the technol- ogy and materials used to make the window. Whether you’re on the inside of historic building looking out or you’re looking at the building from the sidewalk, after a few minutes with this exhibit, you won’t look at historic windows in the same way again. Website: https://www.hpef.us/historic-windows/ windows-through-time or Google “Windows through Time Exhibit” Typical Muntin Profi les, 1740-1930s. Co u r t e s y o f t h e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n E d u c a t i o n F o u n d a t i o n TOOLS FOR THEON-LINEPRESERVATIONIST: Windows Through Time If you are reading this issue of The Alliance Review, you’re already invested in the preserva- tion of old windows. But perhaps you want to learn more about why windows look the way they do? Take a “walk” through the Historic Preservation Education Foundation’s online exhibit on the history of window design. What it is: Beginning with examples from the seventeenth century and up through the mid- twentieth century, you’ll learn how glass technol- ogy, concerns about fi re, and widespread use of pattern books infl uenced the design of windows. Each illustrated example is accompanied with a physical description and a history of the technol- ogy and materials used to make the window. Whether you’re on the inside of historic building looking out or you’re looking at the building from the sidewalk, after a few minutes with this exhibit, you won’t look at historic windows in the same way again. Website: https://www.hpef.us/historic-windows/ windows-through-time or Google “Windows through Time Exhibit” TOOLS FOR THEON-LINEPRESERVATIONIST: Windows PRESERVATIONISTWindows PRESERVATIONIST Through TimeWindows Through TimeWindows Page 34 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is now accepting applications for the 2020 NAPC Commission Excellence Awards program to recognize and honor outstanding efforts and achievements by local preservation, historic district, and landmark commissions and boards of architectural review, as well as individual preservationists doing exemplary work at the federal, state and municipal levels. Award presentations will be made at FORUM 2020 in Tacoma, WA, July 22-26, 2020. Award recipients will receive one complimentary registration to FORUM, a mounted award certifi cate, and will be featured in The Alliance Review, NAPC’s quarterly journal. Honorable mentions, if any, will receive an award certifi cate and one reduced registration. Call for Nominations 2020 NAPC Commission Excellence Awards For information on how to submit a nomination for further details go to: https://napcommissions.org/forum/ or email questions to Stephanie Paul at director@napcommissions.org Submission deadline: March 2, 2020 The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) is pleased to offer scholarship support to qualifi ed students of undergraduate and graduate- level preservation programs to attend and participate in FORUM 2020 in Tacoma, WA, July 22-26, 2020. NAPC is committed to investing a portion of its resources to introduce students of preservation programs to NAPC through fi nancial support and attendance at its programs and events. To learn more about FORUM 2020, please visit our website at www.napcommissions.org/forum NAPC’s scholarships provide: •Registration to FORUM •Reimbursement for qualifi ed travel and lodging expenses (up to $400) •Individual Membership for one year to the NAPC. To qualify for consideration of a NAPC scholarship award, please submit your application by March 2, 2020. Student Scholarships Available FORUM 2020, Tacoma, WA July 22-26, 2020 All applications are to be sent electronically to Stephanie Paul, NAPC Executive Director at director@napcommissions.org Page 35The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions The Window Preservation Alliance (WPA) formed in 2015 with a mission “to inspire the preserva- tion of original windows by educating the public about the beauty, craftsmanship, and energy effi ciency of original windows and supporting the people and businesses who restore them.” Uniting professional window restorers around the country, the WPA provides a level of representation equal to or perhaps greater than replacement window manufacturers. With their simple motto, “Don’t replace…repair,” the WPA connects property owners wishing to save their windows with professionals who specialize in the trade. Inclusive of all who wish “to help change the conversation about windows” the WPA strives to demystify the window restoration process as well as introduce those interested in the trade to professionals who can help them grow. The WPA is a 501(c)(6) trade association governed by a SPOTLIGHT ON A PRESERVATION ORGANIZATION: Window Preservation Alliance The whole gang at their Annual Meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2018. Cr e d i t : W P A F a c e b o o k p a g e Page 36 The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions board of directors residing around the country. The organization’s website provides a wealth of resources includ- ing Top Ten Reasons to Repair or Restore Wood Windows, the Secre- tary of the Interior’s Standards, and reports and studies on energy effi- ciency. Visitors to the site can also find a running list of window preservation events hosted by the WPA or other groups around the country. If you are interested in learning more about the WPA, please visit their website at https://windowpreser- vationalliance.org or find them on Facebook at https://www.facebook. com/WPAwindows/. Hard at work! Page 37The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Page 38 The Alliance Review | Fall 2018 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions MINNESOTA Peavey Plaza is a 2-acre sunken park designed by Modernist landscape architect M. Paul Friedberg and dedicated in 1975. It is regarded as one of the most important works of landscape architecture in the 20th century. The downtown Minneapolis park was recently reopened after a lengthy grass-roots effort and legal battle by preservationists. The plaza’s centerpiece was a 140-foot by 200-foot pool that could be drained when more space was needed for large events and used for ice-skating in winter. Surrounding this central water feature, Friedberg’s signature concrete and planted viewing terraces created an amphitheater-like environment shaded by honey locust trees. Corners were anchored by two fountains where water fl owed down stainless-steel cylinders into a series of angular basins. The plaza served its intended purpose admirably for decades, becoming an urban oasis for downtown inhabitants and functioning as a “front yard” for the Minnesota Orchestra’s concert hall. But the plaza did not age well, especially given Minnesota’s challenging winters. Pressure had been building on the city to update the plaza, which proposed raising it to street grade, thereby obliterating the original design. The city applied to the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission for a permit to demolish Peavey Plaza. In 2012, the HPC voted 8-1 to deny the demolition application. Alarmed by the city’s controversial proposal to demolish the modernist icon, The Cultural Landscape Foundation and the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota fi led a lawsuit under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, and they prevailed. A new design was approved by the HPC and the Minnesota SHPO that addressed accessibility issues and retained character-defi ning features according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. (MN SHPO) OREGON Astoria’s Historic Landmarks Commission approved replacing a wooden sign about Fort Astoria with a plastic variant. The beaverboard sign was installed in 1948 at a small park at the site of the fi rst American settlement west of the Rockies, with one side recounting the history of the fort, and the other detailing its layout. The Commission approved replacing the deteriorating wooden sign with high-density plastic, to the chagrin of local preservationists who argued the city should preserve and repair the existing sign and log supports, replacing them with like-minded materials when necessary. The city did not consider replacing them in-kind, but consulted with Lewis and Clark National Historical Park before concluding a plastic sign would be easier to maintain and not signifi cantly change the character of the site. They included a condition to have the National Park Service perform an archaeological study of the site and pushed for the original sign to be preserved. The condition of the sign came to the forefront after concerns were raised about its dated language, with references to Jane Barnes, which the sign proclaims as “the Oregon country’s fi rst white woman.” (The Astorian) PENNSYLVANIA City Council is making it harder to demolish buildings in 6 historic Philly neighborhoods. Residents of Powelton Village — a tree-lined neighborhood of Victorian townhomes — watch ever-expanding Drexel University with a wary eye. In 2017, City Council declared the storied neighborhood a “conservation district,” a designation that regulates the material and scale of new construction but does not defend against demolition. But Debra McCarty of the Powelton Village Civic Association, says the conservation district’s guardianship has not proven robust enough. “We have seen many intact properties demolished prior to plans being approved for new construction,” said McCarty. That’s why McCarty supports a bill, introduced by Councilmember Mark Squilla, that would regulate the razing of buildings in conservation districts. The legislation would prevent the Department of Licenses and Inspections from granting demolition permits unless they are accompanied by building permits. That means a property owner can’t just knock down an old house, clearing the land for theoretical future development, unless they have a proposal for what they’ll actually do with the lot. There are currently six conservation districts in the city, covering neighborhoods like East Falls, Wissahickon, Queen Village and Overbrook Farms. (Philadelphia Tribune) The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation CommissionsPage 38 Page 39The Alliance Review | Fall 2019 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Page 39 Support NAPC and our mission of building strong local preservation programs through education, advocacy, and training by joining and becoming a member. https://napcommissions.org/join/ WISCONSIN Madison’s City Council upheld on Tuesday a ruling by the Landmarks Commission that found the owner of a historic property on Langdon Street is letting it deteriorate by not making necessary improvements. The city has been urging the owner to address problems at the Suhr House, where Grover Cleveland was once entertained, since November 2016. After two years of noncompliance, the city issued their fi rst ever ruling of demolition by neglect. Under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the building inspector could proceed to repair a landmark, and the property owner would be responsible for the costs or as a special charge against the property. The City Council could also authorize the city to acquire the property through condemnation proceedings. (The Cap Times) WYOMING Casper’s Historic Preservation Commission plans to develop a historic tour app in order to better engage the public about historic resources, in part because people kept showing up with antelope. Patricia McKenzie and her husband had just renovated an old ice factory in town and kept an old sign that had been painted on the wall advertising “game processing.” But when the 2010 hunting season rolled around, the McKenzies ran into a problem. Hunters kept showing up with their trophies asking to have the meat processed. The McKenzies have a programming consultant business and a martial arts studio. So they painted over the sign. The building was recently toured by the commission whose goal is to develop a cell phone app that would give anybody who downloaded it a self-guided tour of the city’s history. They previously had a walking tour, but few of the paper copies are still available. Their plan is to translate it into an app and add to it over time, plus have the opportunity to gather data on how the public is using the app. And it wouldn’t only be historic buildings. The commission is in the process of documenting all of Casper’s “ghost signs.” Perhaps they can re-create the “game processing” sign in the app. (Casper Star Tribune) The Alliance Review National Alliance of Preservation Commissions PO Box 1011 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Name Commission/Organization Address City State Z Zip Phone/Fax E-mail How did you hear about NAPC? Become part of the national network of local preservation, historic district, and landmark com- missions and boards of architectural review. Organized to help local preservation programs succeed through education, advocacy, and training, the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is the only national nonprofit or- ganization dedicated to local preservation commissions and their work. NAPC is a source of information and support for local commissions and serves as a unifying body giving them a national voice. As a member of NAPC, you will benefit from the experience and ideas of com- munities throughout the United States working to protect historic districts and landmarks through local legislation, education, and advocacy. You can also join online at http://napcommissions.org/join JOIN NAPC TODAY ME M B E R S H I P C A T E G O R I E S $20.00 • Student $35.00 • Individual Membership $50.00 • Commissions: Municipal/county population less than 5,000* • Local nonprofit organizations $100 • Commissions: Municipal/county population of 5,000 to 50,000* • Regional or statewide nonprofit organizations $150 • Commissions: Municipal/county population greater than 50,000* • State Historic Preservation Offices • Federal Agencies • National nonprofit organizations PR O F E S S I O N A L N E T W O R K $150 PROFESSIONAL NETWORK • Consultants /Consulting Firms • Businesses/Companies • Other Professional Services In addition to receiving all NAPC membership benefits, Professional members are listed in the NAPC Professional Network Directory at http://napcommissions.org/directory. * Membership includes all commission members and staff. Please provide complete list of mem- bers with names, phone numbers and email address for additional digital copies. Half of all premium membership dues support NAPC’s student internship and Forum scholarship programs $250 CHAIRS CIRCLE $500 FOUNDERS CIRCLE PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP Please return this form with payment to NAPC: PO Box 1011, Virginia Beach, VA 23451 PRESORTED First Class MAIL US Postage Paid Norfolk, VA Permit 25 THE ALLIANCE REVIEW GREEN FEE $30.00 Please include this Green Fee in addition to the membership fees above to receive a quarterly, print version of The Alliance Review in the mail. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2024 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carl Brown, Kevin Burford, Andrew Lewis, Jordan Sellergren, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Beck, Christina Welu-Reynolds, Ryan Russell STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC24-0079: 841 South 7th Avenue - Dearborn Street Conservation District (complete rehabilitation including removal of window opening) Bristow began the staff report showing the location of the project at the corner of 7th and Jackson, the house faces east toward 7th Avenue. The property is considered a non-historic house because it was non-historic at the time of the survey, it's a Minimal Traditional house with a projecting front bay. The door is located facing south, there was a stoop at one time with a metal railing and a little bit of a roof overhang. This house has had a few projects done, there was a rear addition done in 1959 and another addition done in 1995 and then the porch was built and screened in around 1996. The house has also had metal siding put on and in the historic photo it shows some shutters that do not follow guidelines because they're plastic, not installed properly, and not the correct size. Those were installed after the siding. Bristow pointed out on the east side of the house, looking from the northeast corner, there are a couple of windows that are not historic, the front window was more like an early ranch house picture window in the middle with a double hung on each side and there's another window in the screen porch addition. The 1959 addition is stepped in a bit and in the inspector notes it said that it was a bedroom that was entered through another bedroom and the 1995 addition is where at one point there was a garage but that’s no longer existing. This house has been vacant for a little while and it became overgrown. It recently changed hands and is undergoing a comprehensive rehab. The project does some things that they don't need to review since it's in a Conservation District such as they're putting new shingles on the roof and new gutters and down spouts. There are some other portions of the project that would be able to be reviewed administratively. They are removing the deck completely and removing the modern door that accessed the deck as well. They're removing the screens on the screen porch just leaving the roof and the floor and with a support or two. They're removing the shutters and the ramp and replacing it with a traditional step and handrail. Bristow noted the breezeway has some holes in the fascia and soffit that they're patching and then they'll cover that with metal to match the rest of the metal. All of the windows have been replaced with vinyl windows at some point in time and there is an exception in the guidelines, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 10, 2024 Page 2 of 6 especially for a non-historic house in a Conservation District, to allow staff to approve new vinyl windows. They are changing a few of the casement windows to double hung windows to comply with the guidelines and there are no windows on one side of the addition and there's another pair of windows on the back of the addition that'll also become double hung windows matching the same window pattern as seen on the other side of the house. The interior has been gutted completely, there was some termite damage to the framing so it's really a comprehensive project. Bristow noted they know that there is historic siding underneath all of the metal, a shingle wood siding in the gable and some lap sighting below but that was really the extent to the detail on this house since it was Minimal Traditional. The proposal is to add two bathrooms in the central area noted as the breezeway in the agenda packet. Currently there's a window located there that they propose to remove, and it's just not supported by the guidelines for staff to approve, it possibly could have been an intermediate review but Sellergren wanted Commission input on it and so that's why this project is before them for the review of that particular window. Bristow shared the bathroom plan noting they'll have showers on the exterior wall in both of the bathrooms so it's not possible according to their plan to put a window in each of the bathrooms. She showed an image of the south side of the house and the window that will be removed. They have matching siding to patch the opening but they're also going to paint all of the siding anyway so it will all match. The guidelines for this says if a window is to be relocated or removed it should not detract from the overall fenestration pattern and if it is to be closed on a frame structure they would match the siding. Bristow explained the 1959 addition did not have a window on the north side but it did have a window on the south side and it likely had one on the west side too before they added the 1995 addition. The applicant provided a letter as part of their application about the project that she provided in the agenda packet and working through the review it is staff's opinion that the overall rehabilitation project will have a positive impact on the house and neighborhood because it has been in such poor condition for so long and many of the intrusive elements will be removed and the house will be repaired and able to be occupied again. While the window is street facing to the south it is also on the side of the building and while the proposal may not comply with the guidelines staff finds that this may be an appropriate project for the Commission to apply an exception to the guidelines because of the nature of the house and the nature of the project. The Commission has talked in the past about not removing a window to create a windowless wall because historic houses had a regular pattern of windows all the way around on all four sides something that's not common in modern construction. Since the window section of the guidelines does not have a documented exception to allow this already then the next thing would be just to look at the exceptions portion of the guidelines in section 3.2 that talks about how to provide exceptions to non-historic structures such as this. It states in order to qualify for an exception the proposed change to the exterior of a non-historic property must comply with the following criteria: the project will not further detract from the historic character of the district, the project will not create a false historic character, and alterations will be compatible with the style and character of the non-historic structure. Bristow noted one could say that removing the window since it does alter the window patterning might not be compatible with the style of the historic structure but patching the wall with appropriate siding would be and removing the window would not be creating a false sense of character because that tends to be more with things that would be applied to the building and further that is a window that's inset on the side of the building and it wouldn't detract from the character of the neighborhood. Bristow stated after getting her staff report the applicant also provided a letter she wanted Bristow to share with the Commission. In the letter the applicant does spell out basically what her goal with the project is. Staff recommends approving the project through an exception to the guidelines for non-historic properties. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 10, 2024 Page 3 of 6 Villanueva noted this home is listed as non-historic but the age of the home now would technically qualify it to be an historic home. Bristow stated it is listed as non-historic because when the Conservation District was founded it wasn't 50 years old and she has found through her experience here that it tends to be that when the survey was done if the building was not considered historic at that point in time then it was listed as not historic. It truly only needs to be 50 years old in order to be considered historic. For properties like this, if they were to look at this Conservation District again they would probably assume it's historic now because it's old enough but then it would be a matter of whether or not it is a contributing property or a non-contributing property and for that they would look at the entire story of the district and what its period of significance is and if the house falls within that and it has integrity, then it would be contributing. If it's outside of that and/or lacks integrity, then it would be non- contributing. She would assume if it was non-historic when the district was formed it is outside of the period of significance for the district and so this property would be non-contributing if they were to reassess this district. Lewis asked how long the house had been uninhabited. Bristow is unsure but stated not a long time, maybe within the last five years, there had been a long-term owner, like a few decades of ownership, and then it's changed hands a couple times but not been occupied. Burford was curious that there was half round gutters on the one side so are they planning to use half round gutters again. Bristow assumes they're not and will just install K style. MOTION: Lewis moves to recommend approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 841 South 7th Avenue as it's presented in the application through an exception to the guidelines for non-historic properties. Villanueva seconded the motion. Wagner suggests they should put a window on the hallway side opposite the bathroom. Bristow noted there are budgetary concerns that might be talked about in the letter. Thomann noted it is a non-historic home and even it if was it would likely be non-contributing so she is just happy that the space will be used again and that they're not tearing it down and that someone's going in and taking care of it so for those reasons she is fine with letting that side go windowless. Burford stated he finds the fenestration pattern to be all over the place any anyway so doesn’t think that the elimination of one window would aesthetically compromise its beauty. Lewis noted as mentioned it's in an inset. This house has a lot going on structurally and this doesn't seem like it would take that much away or suddenly be like oh my gosh this neighborhood is now hideous just because of the removal of a window. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect-Chair and Staff review: HPC24-0075: 325 North Gilbert Street - Northside Historic District (porch repair of column base, flooring and soffit) Bristow stated this is a key property in the Northside Historic district and it's getting some new column bases and a new soffit. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 10, 2024 Page 4 of 6 HPC24-0081: 8 Bella Vista Place - Brown Street Historic District (deteriorated soffit replacement) This house got a new soffit. Minor Review -Staff review: HPC24-0086: 730 N Linn Street - Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) Bristow stated this house has a shaped shingle on it currently and they're putting on new shingles in the same color of gray. HPC24-0089: 713 East Jefferson Street - Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (replacement stairs to the second floor) Bristow noted this non-contributing house in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District is on Jefferson Street, it was just a reconstruction of the stairs, they also needed to add closed risers and change the railing, she noted it was built the first time without permits. HPC24-0092: 629 Oakland Avenue - Longfellow Historic District (porch repair and front step handrail construction) This house has a really nice railing but the two pedestals are deteriorating quite a bit so they will be reconstructed, and the base will have a nice little beveled edge to help get the water off of it. Also some of the flooring will be replaced and they are going to add a handrail to the steps that matches the handrail on the porch. HPC24-0091: 1220 East Burlington Street- College Hill Conservation District (damaged window replacement and partial foundation reconstruction) Bristow stated last fall there was a ginormous tree sitting next to the very small garage and it fell on the house and did quite a bit of structural damage to the house. It broke floor framing and all sorts of interesting things. The house has asbestos siding on it right now, the roof will be patched, there's a little bit of the garage fascia that'll be fixed. The foundation wall also started to bow and there's a mish mash of bricks so they're going to salvage as many of the historic bricks as they can and use them as a veneer over a block when they replace about an 8 to 10ft section of the foundation wall. They will also replace the window in the gable that faced the tree, there were two windows next to each other and one was destroyed, and the other is fine so they have to replace the one window. Intermediate Review -Chair and Staff review: HPC24-0061: 26 East Market, Old Brick- Local Historic Landmark (door and transom replacement) Bristow noted the doors on Old Brick are not the original doors and that the historic doors are paneled. There was also a question on the transom because in pictures there is a shadow so it is not clear. It appears that there could have been glass in the transom, however they are unsure what the pattern would have been and while they have all the stained glass from the windows and stuff in the basement, they were not able to find the glass from the transom. They are going to do a replacement of the doors with a fully paneled pair of doors and transom without glazing. HPC24-0078: 726 Ronalds Street - Brown Street Historic District (minor change to prior COA adding egress windows and one window well) Bristow stated this is a new house that will be built, it needed to have some egress windows added and that was not in part of the project the Commission approved for the house. There will be an egress window well on the east side of the foundation and the windows on the back and one on the east side are egress windows so that means that they're casements instead of double hung. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 10, 2024 Page 5 of 6 HPC24-0080: 804 East Davenport Street - Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch alterations and repair, radon installation, siding repair, soffit and fascia repair) This house was purchased by the same group who purchased 841 South 7th Avenue so they are rehabbing this house as well. This house is a historic house but it's non-contributing to the Conservation District because of some modifications, one being the fact that the front porch had been screened in and the front porch is more modern because of the fact that this house actually was like a Victorian Vernacular Cottage and it had a wraparound porch. There have been multiple changes to the house, they've removed the screening but they will be retaining the four columns that exist, they're installing radon behind this bump out on the east side, on the back of the house, they have some siding repair, and they have a match to patch in a few places. there is some soffit and fascia repair as well. HPC24-0085: 515 Rundell Street - Longfellow Historic District (rear basement window removal) This house has been undergoing a complete rehab as well and the Commission approved a deck to go outside of the new French doors in the back. There was a basement window below the area for the deck and staff approved removing that basement window. HPC24-0087: 430 South Summit Street - Summit Street Historic District (minor change to prior COA - revised porch to be screened with paneled balustrade and square columns) Bristow stated this house had a large addition that was approved by the Commission a year or two ago and the owners came back wanting to do a change on the north side of the existing configuration. There was already an open porch and they were keeping that open porch because most of the rest of the addition was the second floor, however they did come back and decide they wanted to screen that porch in instead of keeping it as an open porch and the chair and staff approved that as an intermediate review. At first they were going to have just use square spindles, basically a simplification of the highly elaborate front balustrade and they proposed to do a solid panel balustrade but because the upper floor on the back already has an open second floor porch with a paneled balustrade it was decided to match that configuration which is one support column on the outside and one in the middle with two panels and then it'll have the screen door coming off the back. HPC24-0089: 529 East College Street - College Green Historic District (mini-split installation) This home is putting mini-splits in and some of them are on the Johnson Street side so staff wanted to make sure that they wouldn't come right down the middle of the projecting bay, one of them will be off towards the front of the house and the other one will be wrapped around the corner, the unit will be screened with some screening that looks like their porch skirting and they'll also have a unit behind the house. There will also be some on the west side that can’t been seen at all from the street because of the plants. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2024: MOTION: Wagner moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's September 12, 2024 meeting. Lewis seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION: Sellergren noted they are moving forward with the awards prep and Ginalie Swaim is going to send a Friends of Historic Preservation request for nominations. The deadline still the 21st. ADJOURNMENT: Wagner moved to adjourn the meeting. Lewis seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 NAME TERM EXP. 11/9 12/14 1/11 2/8 3/21 4/24 5/22 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E BROWN, CARL 6/30/26 O/E X O/E O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X BURFORD, KEVIN 6/30/27 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X X X X LEWIS, ANDREW 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X X RUSSELL, RYAN 6/30/27 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- O/E X X O/E SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X O/E X X X X X --- --- --- --- THOMANN, DEANNA 6/30/26 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 O/E X X WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X O/E KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member