HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Memo dated August 1, 1989 from State Historical Society of Iowa - Design Guidelines State Historical Societyof Iowa
The Historical Division of the Depatment of Cultural Affairs
r
August 1 , 1989
MEMO
Kathy FROM:
O�
FROM: Judy
RE: Ames Historic District Design Guidelines
I have looked at these guidelines from two standpoints: what is
included and how is it covered? Then I have some general comments.
First, my understanding is that it is best to emphasize the
economic basis for the rules, in the case of legal challenges.
What I see in this document is " . . .visual. . ." and ". . .qualities
which are enjoyed. . . " , not a discussion of protecting the property
values and investments of the neighborhood.
The guidelines cover a number of items with thoroughness, but leave
much unsaid about the issue of total new construction, except for
comments on massing and location on sites. If the intention is to
apply any or all comments in the various new construction areas of
existing buildings to totally new buildings, that should be made
explicit. If the omission was intentional, it could easily be
desired later--desparately. They should reexamine this point.
Mandatory requirements and optional recommendations seems to be a
workable distinction and I generally think really good guidance has
been produced. Exceptions are discussed later.
A glossary is necessary and has been provided. I have problems
with several definitions. Again, see later comments.
I have concerns about the concept of dividing highly visible areas
from less visible areas through the "alteration" and "new
construction" zones, especially because I see examples of
"acceptable proposals" that seem unacceptable to me.
Having these be design guidelines, as distinguished from the
separate "design criteria" seems to be a very confusing use of the
English language. The relationship between them is not clear,
either. Further, what really confuses things for anyone familiar
with other preservation programs , especially survey and National
Register language is the contributing/compatible distinctions made
in Ames. This is unfortunate.
Finally, from an economic protection standpoint, having some
control over what is done to alter or add to a non-contributing
structure would be desirable. Ames won ' t be able to do this.
❑ 402 Iowa Avenue ❑ Capitol Complex ❑ Montauk
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Des N,Ioines, Iowa 50319 Box 372
(319) 335-3916 (515) 281-5111 Clermont, Iowa 52135
(319) 423-7173
Page 2, Ames Historic District Design Guidelines
Now for some specific comments.
Not covered in the text or glossary and subject to
misinterpretation (see Decks and Exits) is the distinction
between "historic" , "original" and "old" . This should be
clarified.
In the glossary, I refer them to Cyril Harris ' dictionaries
for "baluster" , "balustrade" , "mullion" and "muntin" . The
definition of "relocation" would allow a structure to be moved
around on its site--not likely to be a common practice, but a
loophole with this definition. Is it desired?
In Chimney Alteration requirements, I object to the building
and fire code language. There certainly could be acceptable
circumstances for height variances. Providing more specific
repointing mortar mixes might be a good idea in the
recommended column. From the first illustration onward,
Proposal #1 frequently looks like no change is allowed. Is
the proposal for repair, retention, reconstruction--? A
clarification would really help the applicant.
In many of the illustations for new construction, the side
addition is shown. I think it is pretty visible and it would
be better to show an addition on the back.
Under Proposal #1 , Decks, it would also be appropriate to
remove the deck , indeed preferrable. In the illustration for
New Construction, Decks, the drawings seem to show the back
porch columns inconsistent with the proposal.
In Exits, I really object to allowing an exit to be added
toward the front of the side where the stair then also comes
further forward. Also, windows are shown removed in both
Alteration and New Construction illustrations. While I know
how codes read on this issue, removal of historic windows is
not an issue to take lightly.
Recommendations for Fences mention repeating details found on
the building. This is not the best practice. New work should
be compatible with the historic and "whisper that it is new" .
Historic materials should flaunt their authenticity. I
question what is shown in the Fences New Construction and the
Foundation Alteration illustrations.
Page 3 , Ames Historic District Design Guidelines
In the requirements for Foundations in New Construction,
reclaimed brick can be a real problem, if it doesn' t very
closely match existing materials. Those rounded edges gives
the "ye olde" look of used Chicago commons with wider than
appropriate mortar joints. Also, the wording describing
veneered foundations is awkward. Furhter, this item does not
address the possible problem of having the veneer not in the
proper relationship to the plane of the siding. It should.
I did not understand what was said or meant in the last i
paragraph of Design Guidelines for Garages. And in the
requirements of new construction, the issue of how close in
bulk the new garage could be is ducked (C) ; roof slope could
be fruitfully discussed--it doesn' t need to mimic the main
building' s, but there probably are acceptable ranges (H) ; and
the last item (I) is unclear to me.
Downspouts in alteration area--wonder what shape is acceptable
with K-style gutters? See language in item E.
In Massing, New Construction, there is not much discussion of
what is appropriate (B) or compatible (C) . Many times, design
guidelines use lots of illustrations to cover this area.
Again, on the Massing, Additions illustration--it would be
better to show an addition on the back of the building, not
the side.
Under the discussion for Moved buildings, we like to see that
relocation is only used if it is the ONLY alternative to
demolition.
Porches, Alteration Area Requirement C. might allow only
revesible enclosures with large pieces of glass. In
Recommended Item A. , if the design is conjectural, keep it
simple. I suggest they look at language for both items on
Page 29 of the 1983 Sec. of the Interior' s Standards and
Guidelines for Rehabilitation. In the illustration for
Porches , New Construction, I have a problem with the side
section of the Proposal #1 porch--especially on that type of
house.
Roofs, New Construction Area requirement A. would seem to
allow a steep pitch on a prairie school house if Tudor Revival
were also in the district. Isn' t this covered also by item G?
What about color , under item B?
Page 4 , Ames Historic District Design Guidelines
I would love to see the final recommendation (H) for
Siding/Exterior, Alteration area listed instead as a
requirement. Recommendation K on colors is confusing.
In Windows, no anodized metal materials should be allowed--
baked enamel or painted only. Storms in alteration area and
new construction should be properly sized (not blocked down) ,
designed (sightlines, flat surfaces and not protruding, and
finished to look like paint. How does Requirement B fit with
Requirement F--are metals only allowed to replace what was
originally metal, or later changed to be metal?
Page numbers would make this much easier to use.
I 'd be happy to discuss these comments or others that come up with
Ames representatives.
J
a
07�