HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-2023 HPC agenda packet
Thursday
August 10, 2023
5:30 p.m.
Emma Harvat Hall
City Hall
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, August 10, 2023
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30 p.m.
Agenda
A) Call to Order
B) Roll Call
C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
D) Certificate of Appropriateness
1. HPC23-0036: 738 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (changes to previously approved front
window configuration)
2. HPC23-0040: 533 South Summit Street- (roof and columns for a side porch)
E) Public Hearing – Discuss landmark designation for 715 North Dodge Street
F) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review
HPC23-0038: 804 Iowa Avenue – College Hill Conservation District (railing and stucco repair or
replacement)
Minor Review –Staff review
1. HPC23-0027: 331 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (rear deck addition)
2. HPC23-0034: 614 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement,
radon mitigation installation, chimney repair)
3. HPC23-0039: 420 North Gilbert Street – Northside Historic District (front step replacement)
G) Consideration of Minutes for July 13, 2023
H) Commission Discussion
1. HP Awards
I) 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 August 3, 2023
Historic Review for HPC23-0036: 738 Rundell Street
General Information:
Applicant/Owner: Curtis Naso, (319) 621-6491, nasoremodeling@yahoo.com
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
Project Scope: Lower head height location of new windows in façade, originally
approved with HPC21-0107 (COA attached) that expanded the
living space into the historic garage.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.13 Windows
5.0 Guidelines for Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
Property History:
This 1 1/2 story gable roof house with side gable entry is a simple Colonial Revival
design that was built by Howard F Moffitt before 1933. The house has shingled siding, a
wide brick chimney characteristic of Moffit designs, and 6-over-1 double hung windows
on the second floor. The house also has shed-roof dormers on both the front and the
back. The attached garage was original to the house but has been expanded about one
foot by building out the overhead door.
In November 2021, the Commission approved the reconfiguration of the garage into
living space and the construction of a detached garage. They currently have an open
application to replace the north side window on the former garage and the rear door on
that space with a new window and door due to deterioration. That application is
currently under review.
Detailed Project Description:
The proposed project lowers the head height of the two façade windows to align with
the existing garage window on the north side of the building and the door on the back of
the building rather than aligning with the head heights of the windows on the front
façade in the historic living area of the building as approved by the Commission.
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.
• It is also recommended adding new windows in a location that is consistent with
the window pattern of the historic building or buildings of similar architectural
style.
• If an opening is to be relocated, it should not detract from the overall fenestration
pattern.
Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint recommends:
• Matching key horizontal “lines” on the existing building, such as window head
height in order to provide continuity between the addition and the historic
structure.
Analysis:
In Staff’s opinion, the original approval complied with the guidelines because the newly
added windows would match the head height and configuration of the existing first floor
windows in the occupied part of the house. During the original project review, the
window head height was discussed with the applicants and the building inspectors. The
approval was based on the applicants framing the front wall of the former garage with
typical stud framing placed 16 inches on center and individual headers installed over
each opening. Based on the proposed/current header placement, staff requested that
the applicant hire an architect to review the header and if needed structurally. The
architect’s opinion, attached, states the triple 2x12 header is required to meet current
residential structural requirements so eliminating the header would create an unsafe
condition. Since the new window location will not align with the rest of the budling, but
with the remaining elements of the removed garage, staff does not find that this
proposal complies with the recommendation of the guidelines. If the originally approved
configuration is not recommended due to structural reasons, the Commission could
consider an exception to the guidelines to approve the project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 738
Rundell Street as presented in the application through the use of an exception to the
guidelines for structural requirements.
738 Rundell Street
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
HPC21-0107: 738 Rundell Street
A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held at the City Hall on December 9,
2021. The following members were present: Margaret Beck, Kevin Boyd, Carl Brown, Cecile Kuenzli, Kevin
Larson, Jordan Sellergren, Noah Stork, and Frank Wagner.
By a vote of 8-0, the Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for an alteration and new
outbuilding construction project at 738 Rundell Street, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic
District. The project is the reconfiguration of the attached garage as living space, removal of the front
driveway, the construction of a new garage at the rear of the property, and the construction of a deck on the
back of the house.
For the garage conversion, the overhead door build-out will be removed and the wall opening reframed in its
original location, flush with the rest of the wall. The base of the wall will be finished to match the stucco-
coated foundation on the rest of the house. Cedar shingled siding will clad the new wall to match the existing
siding. Two windows, separated by framing and trim, will be installed in the front of the former garage. They
will be one-over-one double-hung wood or metal-clad wood windows matching the first-floor front window,
including size and location of sill and window head. They will be trimmed to match the existing windows.
The front driveway will be removed as required by the zoning code and regraded as necessary.
The front door will be replaced with a new door that matches the original and is approved by staff. If no
match is found, the existing door will be repaired. The existing rear door on the house will remain but will be
raised to the new interior floor level. A storm door will be added if necessary. The applicant will construct a
rear patio. They may need to construct steps in wood or concrete to the patio. Wood steps will have closed
risers. They will no longer construct the planned rear deck.
The applicant will remove the existing front stairs, railing, sidewalk and steps to the street level. The sidewalk
and site steps will be replaced with concrete. The new steps at the front door will consist of a 5 foot by 5 foot
landing set at the level of the door threshold. The stairs will have closed risers. Skirting will enclose the area
under the landing if it is more than 18 inches. The railing will consist of plain square newel posts with angled
tops to shed water, top and bottom rails suspended between the posts and square spindles installed between
the rails, not on the outside of them. The new landing and railing will be constructed of wood and must be
painted to blend with the house.
A new single-car garage will be constructed at the alley. The garage will be set in 5 feet from the alley and
south side property line to meet code. The garage will be a 14 foot by 24-foot gable-roof garage clad in Cedar
shingles to match the house. Cement board shingles can be approved by staff if they are shown to match th
house. The garage will have a single-car overhead door, a passage door and a single window in each side wall.
The windows will be revised from the application drawings to smaller windows that are either double or
single-hung or fixed sash and will be wood or metal-clad wood. Sketches, a mockup and the approved front
windows and front door are attached. Windows, passage door, and overhead door for the new garage have
not been submitted for approval and are not yet approved.
The application is subject to the following conditions:
1. Drawings for the deck are submitted for staff approval
2. The rear door on the house remains at the house and a new door is installed in the garage
3. The garage windows are revised to smaller double or single-hung wood or metal-clad wood windows
4. All window and door product information is approved by staff
5. Either one or two windows, centered on the wall can be used in the existing garage area.
The project is approved subject to the conditions specified in this certificate, notations in the application, and
the discussion by the Commission as provided in City Code Section 14-8E-2. All work is to meet the
specifications of the guidelines unless otherwise noted. Any additional work that falls under the purview of
the Historic Preservation Commission that is not specified in this certificate will need a separate review.
Approval by the Historic Preservation Commission does not constitute final approval for a project. Contact
the Building Department to acquire a building permit before beginning the project. The Historic
Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with zoning ordinance and building
code.
__________________________________
Kevin Boyd, Chair
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
___________________________________
Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Department of Development Services
1/4/2022
___________________________________
Date
Staff Report August 3, 2023
Historic Review for HPC23-0040: 533 South Summit Street
General Information:
Applicant/Owner: William Burns, (847) 732-6926, drbilly@aol.com
Contact Person: Frank Wagner, (319) 321-7910
District: Summit Street Historic District
Classification: Contributing
Project Scope: Add roof and columns to side porch approved in 2021.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
5.0 Guidelines for Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
Property History:
This two-story gable front house has an EL shape because of the crossing gable at the
rear. Several changes have been made over the years including a reorganization of the
main staircase which originally turned. Straightening the staircase pushed the front door
outward. At one point the house was duplexed, the rear staircase also being
straightened to create an exterior entrance for an attic apartment. The entry deck on the
north side was built in 1992. The house did not originally have an entry porch in this
location. There was an open porch on the south end of the west side in addition to the
wrap around porch. The house was clad in aluminum siding in 1978, obscuring its
original details. Staggered shingled siding still remains in the gables. The wrap-around
porch had been enclosed at one point but is now open. The garage was built in 1940.
Detailed Project Description:
The scope of this project is to add roof and columns, matching the historic front porch
as closely as possible, to the step and stoop originally approved in 2021. This step and
stoop was originally designed to eventually become a side porch. The roof will be a hip
roof with metal roofing (devoid of ridges or striations between any seams). The columns
will match or closely approximate the columns on the front porch. The slope of the roof
and the roof edge or soffit condition will also match the front porch. Sketches and
photos are attached.
Guidelines:
Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint recommends:
• Constructing new porches that are consistent with the historic building or similar
to porches of the same architectural style.
• Constructing porches that are more than 18 inches above grade using traditional
porch construction with wood joists and wood flooring.
Analysis:
In Staff’s opinion, the proposal to match the front porch as closely as possible complies
with the guidelines. The alignment of the porch columns with the frieze board and the
porch floor structure should also match the front porch. The roof slope should match the
front porch roof slope. Since the new side porch will be less deep than the front porch,
the height of the new roof against the house will be slightly lower at the ridge than
shown in the application sketches. The new porch is less deep than the standard 8 foot
porch depth because of site constraints with the location of the garage.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 533 South
Summit Street as presented in the application.
533 South Summit – front façade
533 South Summit- area of new side porch – from rear of house
Application sketch – side view (note that roof slope will be lower than shown on sketch-
the columns will also sit on the porch floor, aligned with the piers below)
533 S Summit – corresponding side image of existing porch (notice roof slope lower
than sketch)
Application sketch – front view (note that roof slope will be lower than shown on sketch-
the columns will also sit on the porch floor, aligned with the piers below)
533 South Summit Street – view of the new porch area from the front
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
Memorandum
Date: August 2, 2023
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: 715 North Dodge, Original Emma Goldman Clinic
In an effort to tell a more complete history of Iowa City, and in conjunction with the upcoming 50-year
anniversary of the forming of the Emma Goldman Clinic, former Commission Chair, Kevin Boyd, and
representatives of the Clinic have proposed local landmark designation for the property at 715 North
Dodge. Staff contacted the owners of the property, Jennifer Glanville and Benton McCune, who have
expressed support for the designation and have provided the attached letter. Staff has submitted the
application for rezoning on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Designation of the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark will require Commission approval of
any significant changes to the exterior of the building. Landmark status will also make the property
eligible for special exceptions that would allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain
zoning requirements and for State Tax Credit funding of rehabilitation work as well as funding through
our Historic Preservation Fund for eligible rehabilitation projects. Since the property is already
classified as a Key Property in the Brown Street Historic District, landmark designation will not change
how the property relates to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Ordinance.
As the attached site inventory form describes, this house is a gable-front house with some Craftsman
Style detailing built between 1920 and 1926. It is very similar to catalogue houses that were popular at
the time, and it may be a representative of this type. The house has a full front porch with a solid
balustrade and grouped, battered columns on tall piers. The house has narrow lap siding with corner
boards at the first floor. A mid-level band board at the level of the second-floor window sills
demarcates a change to shingle siding with mitered corners and a ribbon coursing pattern. On the
north side, the house has a single-story, square projecting bay with a shed roof. A full length shed roof
dormer punctuates the main gable roof on the north side. The house has five-over-one double hung
windows in pairs on the front façade and singles elsewhere. On the rear, an attached garage has a
shed roof and connects to an enclosed rear porch to the south.
The attached history of the home details its significance to women’s history, social history, and health
and medicine at the local level. In 1973, following the landmark ruling in Roe vs Wade, a group of
young women formed the Emma Goldman Clinic to provide feminist health care. They formed this
clinic in a neighborhood house to provide a new kind of healthcare, one that was welcoming and
unlike traditional medical offices. As they expanded, they acquired the home next door and then
expanded to the location on North Dubuque Street. The house at 715 North Dodge Street is
significant as the founding location for this pioneering organization in women’s healthcare.
Landmark Designation
The Commission should determine if the property meets criterion A. and B. and at least one of the
criteria C., D., E., or F. for local designation listed below:
a. Significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology and culture;
b. Possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials and workmanship;
c. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history;
d. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
e. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or
represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
f. Has yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history.
Staff finds that the property is significant for its role in our local feminist history and women’s
healthcare. As the location of the founding of the Emma Goldman Clinic meets local Criterion A and
C. As an intact example of a Craftsman-detailed house from the 1920s, the property meets Criterion B
and in Staff’s opinion, Criterion E. Staff does not find that there is enough information to consider the
property meeting Criterion F at this time.
Based on the information provided, staff finds that the property meets criteria A, B, C, and E, and
therefore qualifies as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Attachments include Site inventory forms for
the property, a history of the property as the Clinic, a location map, and photos.
Recommended Motion:
Move to approve the designation of 715 North Dodge Street (Original Emma Goldman Clinic) as an
Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria A, B, C, and
E.
Enclosures:
Letter of Support from property owners
Iowa Site Inventory form
Emma Goldman Clinic History
715 North Dodge Street – front façade (NE corner)
715 North Dodge Street – front façade (SE corner)
715 North Dodge Street – attached garage (NW corner)
Site Inventory Form
State Historical Society of Iowa
1012712005 Printed from Database
Inventory #: 52-01404
Opinion
Cont ri b uting in Di str i ct
Listed on NRHP
Source-Year
Co nsultant-1981
NPS-2004
Criteria Considerations
ABCD ABCDEFG
YNYN NNNNNNN
Contr ib uti ng in Di strict SNRC-2004 Y N Y N N N N N N N N
In District: 52 : 00002 Goosetown Historic District
52 : 00007 Brown Street Historic District
Review & Compliance #:
1. Name of Property NRHP Listed: 9/29/2004 Non -Extant: No Non-Extant Year:
historic name : House
other names:
2. Locati on
street & number: 715 N Dodge St
City: Iowa City
Legal Descripti o n:
Vicinity : No County: Johnson
(If Rural)
(If Urban) Subdivision: Block:32 Lot:8
5. Classification
Category of Property:
Building(&)
Number of Re so urces within Property
Contributing: Non-Con tributing :
1 Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Buildings
Sites
Structures
Objects
Name of related survey or MPS 1 Q Total
HADB: 52 • 012 Jacobsen, James E., 1981 • Goosetown Historic District Nomination
HADB: 52 • 028 Svendsen, Marlys A., 1992 • Historic Resources of Iowa City, Iowa
HADB: 52 • 029 Nash, Jan Olive, 1997 ·Survey and Eval uation of a Portion of the Original Town Plat of Iowa City,
Iowa: An Intensive Level Historical and Architectural Survey and Amendment to the Mu ltiple
Property Documentation Form "Hi storic Resources of Iowa City, Iowa"
6. Functi on or Use
Historic Functions
DOMESTIC/single dwelling
Current Functions
DOMESTIC/s ingle dwelling
7. Descripti on
Arc hite ctural Cla ssification
Late 19th & Early 20th Century American Movements: Bungalow/Craftsman
Materials
Fou ndation:
Walls: Metal / Aluminum
Roof: Asphalt
Other: Asphalt
8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
y A: Significa nt Events
~ B: Significa nt Persons
y C: Arc hitectural Characteri stics
~ D: Archaeology
(Y=Yes N=No M=More Research Recommended)
Area of Significance
Architecture
Community Planning and Development
Significant Person: Architect:
10. Geographic Data
UTM Refe rences:
Criteria Considerations
N A: Relig io us In stit utio n
N B: Moved
N C: Birthplace or Grave
N D: Cemetery
N E: Reco nst ru cted
N F: Commemo ra tive Property
N G: Less t ha n 50 Years of Age
Significant Dates
Construction Year:
1920 D Circa
Other Dates:
Builder
Photo/Slide: Roll/Sheet# Frame Slot
14
Year:
1981
Photo/Slide: Roll/Sheet# Frame Slot Year:
f 1540
IOWA SITE INVENTORY FORM
CFN 259-1357
11/26/90
catiop •nd rupgtiopal xnform&tiop
Survey ID Number 5 2 -96-032
Database ID Number ------
R & c Number ------
1. Historic Name(s) -----------------------------
2. Cormnon Name(s) --___,.-=--...,....----=--~~--------------------
3 . Street Address ___ . ..L_7~J 5;L.-...... N~. ~D!.lo!o~dg~e~Sclo.t..._. -~-:-:-"':"'""""':-:-----;---;--;:---::---:------:::--;-----
4. City Iowa City Vicinity [ 1 5. County Jobnson
6. Subdivision -----loU.__ ____ 7. Block(s) 32 8. Lot(s) ........_ _____ _
Section Quarter of Quarter ___ of __ _ 9. Legal Description: (if -rural) Township Range
Dtag;iRtiOD
10. Historic Function ( s) _a.S1~· n~q~lJii.e_.fii.Siamiww.a.lvL...lodw..-.el ... l .... i..,.n~¥.a __________ _
~
OlA
11. CUrrent Function ( s) _Mu~liWt ... i.;;;.-~fama.w.~i.-ly.L..ld.u~w~&e..,ll ... iw.n~q------------01B
12. OWner
Address
North Side Deyelonment Phone#--=~=~-
730 N Van Buren St City/State Iowa City. IA ZIP 52245
BHP Sources: Cty. Resource (] HABS (] Photo [] NR [] Tax Act [] Grants [] DOE [] R&C []
(Plat Map) ' (Sketch Map)
N N
•flJkl•HIIII•§IliH:;;RI~ Ill R~illlll~
,....--ni"""1AnS z STREE ~ §I 85§1 1 W~W E!~tjiiiii~R ·III~IIIILE~ ~8 I IIB~ttHI @iiiiiiii~!DJ]§I 1~111111~
..J CHURCH ·. > ~ II lid §lll!::lld,lllt=l := 1111 ·11 R I H I
111118§11§·§;3 -lH . §11111111111
F' AIRCHILO u.wtn ~ . Ill II R § lllH §J IOIAAt Ld S I F9 Ill R (
~lief.
~ \J
0 ~
0 ~
· 15~old.S ~-
Source: "I.e. Planning & Community Development-1997
INTEGRITY NOTES:
Good integrity.
EVALUATION SHEET
Address: 715 N. Dodge St., Iowa City, IA
Architectural Significance and Associ~ted Context(s):
Applicable National Register Criteria: [~) A [~) B [x) c [ J D
National Register Eligibility: I~div~dual: ___ Yes _x_ No
D ~str~ct: ___ Contributing ___ Non-Contributing
Reviewed by I Date: Jan Nash I 3/14/97
~is ~ernacul~r house is heavily. influenced by the Craftsman style. The boxy, gable-front shape
Wl~ 1ts prom1nent front porch ~s ~ house form often given Craftsman details during this time
per1od. Many ready-cut houses ava1lable through catalogs such as Davenport's Gordon-Van Tine
Co., or Sears Ro~uck,.offer7d hous es very similar to this one. Craftsman details include the
us7 of many vert~cal-~~~ht w1ndows, exposed rafter ends and purlins, and the combination wood-
shlngle-over-narrow s1d1ng wall cladd1ng.
Continuation Sheet [ )
Historical Significance and Associated Context(s) =-----------------------------------------
Applicable National Register Criteria: [ J A [ 1 B [ ] c [ ] D
National Register Eligibility: Individual: _ Yes _ No
District: ___ Contributing ___ Non-Contributing
Reviewed by I Date: __ ~J~anML~N~a~sh~~~~~J~/~1.4~/9~7~---------------------------------------
The entire block on which this house sits was originally deeded to John Neinner in 1846.
Neinner also purchased other discontiguous lots in the +lOrth side area in 1846, but this block
was his largest single holding as well as being farthest from the new state capital's downtown
area. There were other nearby whole blocks still on the market in 1846 so there is no clear
reason for his. choice. The lot on which this house was built is not mentioned again in the
transfer records until 1913 when John Goss and his wife give a quit claim deed to Leo Goss .
The land does not leave the Goss family ownership until Fred A. Goss, et al, deeded it to Fred
Racine in 1921. Racine deeded the northern third of the lot on which this house sits to Peter w. Prizler in December, 1925; Prizler promptly deeded it to his wife, Florence A. Prizler, in
January of 1926. The Prizlers likely had the present house built at that time and did not sell
it until 1944, when ownership was transferred to Anton and Mary H. Piek.
Peter Prizler was a truck driver in for Lenoch and Cilek according to the 1928 city directory.
Prepared by --~Ran~d~y~C~a~rp~e~n~t~e~r~~--~~---=~~~~-----------
Address ~-----9~3~1~Ma~i~d~en~~L~an~e~·~I~o~w~a~C~i&tYLL·-I~Aa-~5~2~2~4uO~----------Affiliation Tallgrass Historians L.C.
Continuation Sheet [ 1
Date ~----~J~an~~·~1~9~9~7~~-
Telephone --~3.1,9~/3~5~4~-~6~2w7~7--
Property Characteristic For.m RESIDENTIAL
N 259-1402 Survey ID Number 52-96-032
11/27/90 Database ID Nuinber ----:-----
Street Address: _.7.15~N~Po~d~q~e~-------------~---City Iowa City County Johnson
Legal Description: (If Rural) Township Range Section Quarter of Quarter
of
Location Integrity: Original Site (OS) Moved (MV) Moved to Original Site (MO) _QS__
Endangered?: 11 or Y If ye~, why? ------------------------------------------------
Ground Plan: a. Building Shape(s) Irregular b. Width _27..._ __ by Depth _so-. __ in feet
Architectural Style/Stylistic Influences
vernacular/Craftsman influence
Key Stylistic Attributes
Materials: Foundation ~c~o~n~c.rKe~te~b~l~o~c"k~--~----------------------------
Walls ___ t~h~1~·n~w~oQo~d~C~l~a~p~b¥oa~r~d~s~-----------------------------Roof asphalt shingle
Number of Stories -w.,......-
Roof Shape
Builder(s)
Original Construction Date -------
•
Architect (s) Unknown
Modification/Addition Date:
10
02
08
Code
07E
Continuation Sheet [ 1
Significant Interior Components:
Unknown.
Surveyor Conunents:
Well maintained house.
Sources:
Field inspection 8/27/96.
City Assessor records.
Continuation Sheet [ 1
Continuation Sheet [ 1
Sanborn Map Co. fire insurance maps, 1920 and 1933 (updated to 1944).
Johnson County Land Transfer Records.
Abstract of Original Deeds (located at the Johnson County Recorder's Office).
See also bibliography in project report.
Needs Furtl:ler Study /Anomaly ( l
Surveyor Marie Ne\Jbauer
Continuation Sheet [ 1
Date August 27. 1996
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JULY 13, 2023 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carl Brown, Deanna Thomann, Noah Stork, Jordan Sellergren, Andrew
Lewis, Nicole Villanueva, Margaret Beck
MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Wagner, Christina Welu-Reynolds
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow
OTHERS PRESENT: Andy Martin, Sherry DeGraw
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice-Chairperson Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC 23-0030: 430 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (skytube installation):
Bristow began the staff report noting this is in the Brown Street Historic District and located on the
corner of Van Buren and Brown. She showed a photo of the property noting the front facade of the
house has a front porch the full width of the house, it has a gable roof with a full dormer and because it
is a gable roof this house is a colonial revival and part of the sub-genre of Dutch Colonial. Bristow
stated there was an addition to match the house in the 60s or 70s and also a new garage that was
added more recently.
This project is to add Solatube skylights to the roof and she showed they fit on the roof so that the
portion of the tube on the exterior does not have to have the interior portion directly below, the skylight
can be redirected so if the skylight is put on the north side on the exterior it can light a portion of the
space inside on the south side. In this instance the exterior portion on the outside would be on the
north portion of the roof where the addition ties in and it's letting light into the space on the south side of
the roof. This will allow them to have the skylight’s light on the south side but not have skylights on the
front of the house. She showed the roof plan submitted noting the squares would be the Solatubes
located pretty close to the top of the roof line.
The application says that they are adding light to their attic master bedroom suite and the other one
goes to another space. Bristow confirmed the skylights will not be visible from the street however
during the staff review she noticed that there is an option for a flat version and she showed the exterior
options for different types of roof like Shake shingles, regular shingles, slate, flat tile roof, Spanish tile,
and metal and a low profile shingle. Currently the recommendation in the staff report is to approve the
project using the low-profile option instead of the fisheye lens if it will function properly for the project
installation.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 13, 2023
Page 2 of 8
Bristow stated they have very little in the guidelines about skylights but do talk about putting them on
the back of the house. They had been getting a number of applications that were all similar and they
tend to approve them all the same and so the Commission approved a staff reviewable project for
skylights as a minor review and that included conditions such as the fact that they're installed on the
rear-facing slope, that they're framed in metal as opposed to vinyl, in a color that blends with the
building roof material, that the skylights are low profile and follow the angle of the roof and do not
include fisheye lenses or other elements that protrude more than six inches above the roof surface, and
that the skylight is sized to fit between the roof joists and have a length that is no more than three times
the width. However, this project using the Solatube does not follow those conditions and that is why
this project is before the Commission for a review.
Again, Bristow stated the recommendation is to use the flat low-profile version if it functions properly
and she sent a message to the contractor but hadn't heard back. She also called the company and
they said the flat low-profile tends to be less expensive than the others and it loses about five percent of
the light normally gained but beyond that the contractor can talk about the feasibility of using that in
relationship to the recommendation.
Currently based on what the manufacturer said Bristow would have revised this to strike the “if it will
function properly for the project” from the recommendation because it appeared it is feasible, however
depending on what the contractor has to say the Commission can either strike that or not or remove it
completely.
Stork asked if the Commission is only approving this because it's not the fisheye design type. Bristow
confirmed that was correct however she would actually argue it's also not the standard rectangular one
and being the Solatube, whether it was the low profile or not, it would likely have to come before the
Commission.
Andy Martin, contractor on this project, first stated it was interesting Bristow was told the flat one would
work because the company told him they should not mount the flat ones on a north facing slope, only
on the south face. Bristow clarified she didn’t give them that much information. Martin acknowledged
the idea being the fisheye lens would allow it to be mounted on the back of the house and then they
can get that light in the front of the house, particularly in the bedroom and the bathroom areas where
they don't have a whole lot of light. He believes they wanted one for the closet too but that could
probably be done with a regular skylight depending on where that falls on the roof. Because of the roof
line the idea was that the domes were the way to go because that way they would get more light
distributed into the room.
Sellergren asked for clarification if the rectangular ones are not advised for that side of the house.
Martin confirmed he was told the low-profile ones, the flat ones, should only be used on a south face
which would put it on the street face.
Beck asked what the dimensions of the fisheye are. Martin replied it's roughly 16 by 16. He noted they
can get a 10-inch unit and a 14-inch but they were looking at the 14 or 16 with four along the roof and
then one on the back.
Stork asked how high the dome things stick up from the from the roof line. Martin replied it’s maybe a
foot on the downward side.
Sellergren asked Bristow if historically the Commission would have seen something on a roof that
would have that shape, perhaps roof vents. Bristow is not sure, but for solar panels and skylights they
tend to like them to just be rectangular and low profile to blend in with a roof but this is on the back of
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 13, 2023
Page 3 of 8
the house so not as visible.
Sellergren is generally in favor of changes that allow people to rely more on natural light within their
house and it does sound like unfortunately the flat option will not work in this location and it is good to
prioritize placement on the back.
Bristow stated in staff’s opinion it is not going to have a significant adverse effect to the nearby
Landmark property, either. Sellergren agrees and stated a circle versus a rectangle is not such a big
deal if one is more effective than the other. She believes the Commission should prioritize the option
that is more efficient and provides more light and is more effective and therefore doesn’t see any
reason to not approve the round ones.
Stork stated the approval that the Commission had done in a prior project for skylights in the setup for a
minor staff review was very clearly defined as to exactly what approved and not approved and so would
approving this create a precedent and make it possible for somebody to look at this case as an
example for them to do the same thing. Bristow confirmed that's an accurate concern, but at least it is
on the back and if the Commission wanted to put the condition back in that they verify that it doesn't
work to have the flat one that would be the only thing she could really think of that they could do unless
they chose to just not approve this. She did also note the Commission would have to approve any
future projects if it was anything but the standard approved products.
MOTION: Thomann moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 430
Brown Street, as presented in the staff report allowing the fisheye option if the low-profile
option is not feasible. Brown second.
A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Wagner & Welu-Reynolds absent).
HPC23-0018: 511 South Lucas Street - Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (window
replacement)
Bristow stated this project was deferred from the June agenda at the applicant's request. It's in the
Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District which has a mixture of contributing properties. This
property is a Foursquare that does have a little bump out on the north side. It has vinyl siding and at
this point in time has five 5 over 1 windows and one 6 over 1 on the front of the house. On the back are
the multi-paned fixed sash windows and another 5 over 1. When the property was recently purchased
the owners replaced all of the windows with vinyl single hung - single light windows. When that was
discovered the owners were given a notice of violation of the zoning code for doing the work without
approval and then they submitted the application and in the application, they provided the information
about the windows that they in put in. Typically what happens with a window approval project is
somebody submits an application and then staff go out and look at the windows determine if they are
able to be repaired or if they need to be replaced. The goal is to retain the historic windows because
they're made for the house and fit that house and can have an indefinite lifespan. The storm windows
themselves may need to be replaced over time. Windows are reviewed and typical things seen are
cracked paint, cracked glazing putty, missing paint and glazing putty, broken glass, missing glass,
broken and missing weights or sash cords and trim. All of these things are repairable conditions and
therefore the windows do not need to be replaced.
With this project, the windows were replaced before staff could look at them. The photos submitted with
the application don't show the type of deterioration they need to see to approve the replacement of
these windows. They can see that the storm window does not fit the window because they are filled in
with something above. They also see that there's some paint that's no longer there but they can't tell
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 13, 2023
Page 4 of 8
the condition of the windows. They can see that there's been questionable glazing, but the staff
recommendation would probably be that the windows were not beyond repair.
Regardless, the windows are now gone so the project that is before the Commission is the fact that the
windows that they installed don't meet the requirements of the guidelines. The original windows were
double hung and the new windows are single hung, the new windows are vinyl instead of wood or metal
clad wood, the new windows are just a single light sash instead of a 5 over 1 or 6 over 1 like the front
window, and in addition they don't meet the requirements that they are the same size as the existing
window because they used what's known in the construction industry as a pocket replacement window
which is an entire window and frame that sits within the frame of the original window and reduces the
size of the view out. Bristow stated they don't approve pocket replacements when people want to
replace a window because it's fairly invasive and tend to approve sash replacement first. She
explained in this situation there were multiple things about these windows that they could not approve,
the single pane of glass and the fact that it's smaller are just a few.
Bristow stated this application was deferred from last month because they're working with the owners
who have been responsive but do live out of state. The owners have notified Bristow that they do agree
with the staff recommendation included in the staff report.
The first recommendation included in the staff report is to replace the windows with vinyl windows,
which staff recommends denying because those windows do not meet guidelines. By denying the
recommendation it allows the owners to appeal if they want.
Staff has made a recommendation that allows the Commission some leniency with the approval of the
project. The Commission could decide to approve the replacement of all the windows with windows
that would follow the guidelines but staff allowed for the leniency by making a recommendation that
replaces the windows on the front of the house with new windows that follow the guidelines right away
and replaces the other vinyl windows as they fail with windows that match those on the front. This
takes away any misunderstanding that they can continue to use vinyl in the future when they
need to replace the windows.
Stork asked long vinyl windows usually last. Bristow replied it varies but they often have a limited
warranty of maybe ten years, but will actually last longer depending on if they are solid vinyl or vinyl
clad and how they are cared for.
Beck asked what the consequence is if the owner refuses the staff recommendation and doesn’t
replace any of the windows. Bristow stated it's a violation of the zoning code and they will be fined.
Sherry DeGraw was a former commissioner on the Historic Preservation Commission and is now with
the Friends of Historic Preservation and noted if the owners go against what they're supposed to do the
City has the ability to not give them more future building permits until they correct the problem that
needs addressing.
Brown stated part of their charge is trying to make historic relevance enticing so homeowners want to
do it because it's better and it sounds like the homeowners are receptive to this alternative.
Sellergren noted there is a real possibility that no new homeowner will come along and want to
completely rehabilitate a historic home and with this compromise there's the potential that the home
could actually be brought back to some kind of splendor.
MOTION: Brown moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 511 South
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 13, 2023
Page 5 of 8
Lucas Street, as presented in the application. Sellergren second.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied on a vote of 0-7 (Wagner & Welu-Reynolds absent).
MOTION: Beck moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 511 South
Lucas Street replacing the windows on the front of the house with new windows that follow the
guidelines and replacing the other vinyl windows as they fail or before with windows that match
those on the front. Stork seconded.
Brown asked if this house is sold or the ownership changes does this Commission or the City office
track these type of projects. Bristow confirmed that part of her process on reviewing a project is to go
back and look these up and note sometimes things are approved with conditions that affect things in
the future.
A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Wagner & Welu-Reynolds absent).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review
HPC23-0032: 1409 Sheridan Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (front and side porch repairs):
Bristow stated this is a cute little bungalow that's right along the creek, it has a screen in porch where
they tried to work with the architecture and now it has some porch repairs needed and some of the
railing will be replaced and just some other basic porch repairs.
Minor Review -Staff review
HPC23-0033: 428 East Jefferson Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (site stair replacement and
porch stair repair):
Bristow stated this is a Foursquare that used to have an open porch, it's covered in metal siding, and
they need to work on their front steps. She noted the guidelines are clear that a wood porch has wood
stairs and a concrete porch would have masonry or concrete stairs. Therefore, they cannot approve
the porch stairs as concrete again and they'll have to be wood if replaced so they're repairing them so
they can remain concrete for now. The stairs in the yard will be concrete again.
HPC23-0035: 420 North Linn Street – Northside Historic District (front stair and railing replacement):
Bristow stated this property shows up on the 1868 bird's eye view map of Iowa City so it was built
before that. The 1899 Sanborn map shows that it is pink which means that it is brick and it has two
individual porches which would have had separate roofs. Historically it was clad in wood siding. Over
time they've combined the porches and added asbestos siding over the wood siding. It originally was a
duplex. The current project is just to replace the steps, the railing on the deck is not being replaced
right now.
Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review
HPC23-0022: 28 South Linn Street (Old Post Office)– Local Historic Landmark in the Iowa City
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 13, 2023
Page 6 of 8
Downtown Historic District (exterior rehabilitation, cleaning, repairs, and reconstruction):
Bristow stated this is the senior center, which was the Old Post Office, and it is going to go through a
thorough exterior rehabilitation. They have hired a historic preservation architect, Pete Franks from
Frank's Design Group out of western Iowa. They came through and did a thorough study of the
condition of the building and discovered some very interesting things. One was the fact that the
building itself is constructed out of brick, the limestone is just a thin face material that covers the whole
thing. Also fascinating is the way they constructed the piers, they are just exposed brick on the roof
side and there's no cladding or limestone covering over that. She noted bricks have mortar joints and
mortar joints fail and need to be repointed. The overall condition assessment showed that the whole
railing system and those piers are falling outwards because as the brick has been repointed and the
joints have expanded because of significant water infiltration. Therefore, the entire railing will come
down and be reconstructed and all of the limestone cladding of the piers will be reset.
Bristow shared the architect's drawings to give a scope of work for the exterior project. It is a basic
repair, restoration and rehabilitation of the exterior envelope of the existing 1929 building. They'll
dismantle and reconstruct the existing limestone parapet piers to correct for out of square and out of
plumb conditions, reconstructing with reinforced CMU cores, meaning they'll put steel reinforcement in
the cores of the concrete block. They'll install a new membrane roof and then do a full exterior veneer
restoration. Individual wall pieces will be replaced with a new limestone that matches the existing.
Regarding the stone, the only thing that was questionable from a staff point of view is that they had
proposed to use some sealant with masonry that is highly controversial because it can prevent the
stone from breathing so water that gets in there can be trapped and cause the stone to burst apart
when it freezes. Guidelines disallow sealant and the National Park Service treatment for masonry also
would disallow that so staff asked the architect about the amount of staining and deterioration and they
are actually only to put sealant on the top surface of the cornice, allowing the rest of that stone to
breathe so staff did feel that that was an appropriate installation. Bristow noted all of the modern
windows will be replaced but not the trim, they will just be repairing all of the wood trim. The windows
were replaced when it became the senior center with ones that didn’t match the historic windows, so
now they will replacing all of the windows with windows that follow guidelines and match the historic
configuration. The storefront doors will be replaced as well because they've reached the end of their
lifespan.
HPC23-0031: 625 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (8-foot rear
fence):
Bristow stated the owners are putting in a fence around most of their rear yard that will be eight feet tall.
It will be a solid fence and will be painted with a mural on one side, as the owner of this house is an
artist. The house next door has an extensive 1960s apartment building attached to the back with a
parking lot so most of the fence will go between the parking lot and their yard and then back along the
alley which is a heavily traveled alley. It came to staff for review because it was taller than six feet and
needed a permit.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 8, 2023:
MOTION: Villanueva moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
June 8, 2023, meeting, as written. Stork seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-
0 (Wagner & Welu-Reynolds absent).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 13, 2023
Page 7 of 8
COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Bristow welcomed new commissioner Andrew Lewis. Lewis stated he has lived here for quite some
time, he came here for grad school moved into a house on Davenport Street, so in Goosetown. He
now works at the University in the Center for Language and Culture Learning.
Commission Officer Election
Bristow stated they need to have an election of officers, for both Chair and Vice-Chair. She explained
basically the role of the chair is to run the meeting and if the chair is not available the vice chair will step
in. Also every time they have a certificate of no material effect or an intermediate review Bristow will
send the chair an email and the chair will either respond or call if there are questions. They also talk
about what's on the agenda in advance, but how much contact or how much the chair wants to be
involved is up to them.
MOTION: Brown moved to appoint Sellergren as Commission Chair. Beck seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Wagner & Welu-Reynolds absent).
MOTION: Villanueva moved to appoint Stork as Commission Vice Chair. Brown seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Wagner & Welu-Reynolds absent).
Signage at 942 Iowa Avenue
Bristow stated per the Civil Rights Grant in 2016 they put two properties on the National Register and
put up informative signage out in front of them. The signage in front of 942 Iowa Avenue was damaged
so they've taken it down to get it repaired. She wanted to make the Commission aware of this because
she has gotten calls about the missing signs which right now are in the office of the street’s
superintendent and once they are fixed they will put them back up.
Bristow noted their awards are coming up and very soon she will schedule a meeting for the committee.
Since it's the 40th anniversary of the awards they are asking Channel 4 to do a little video. If anyone
on the Commission wants to help with that part of the project let Bristow know. The awards will be held
September 28th at the Highlander.
Brown noted he and Stork spoke briefly after the June meeting about the idea of adding an educational
component so if everyone wants can be put it on a future agenda in the Commission discussion section
and they can brainstorm about topics.
ADJOURNMENT:
Thomann moved to adjourn the meeting. Beck seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0
(Wagner & Welu-Reynolds absent).
The meeting was adjourned at 6:26 pm.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2022-2023
NAME
TERM
EXP. 7/14 8/11 9/8 10/13 11/10 1/12 2/9 3/22 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13
BECK,
MARGARET 6/30/24 O/E X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X
BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X 0/E X X --
BROWN,
CARL
6/30/23 X O/E X X X O/E O/E X X O/E X X
LARSON,
KEVIN
6/30/24 X O/E O/E O -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
SELLERGREN,
JORDAN 6/30/22 O/E O/E X X X X X O/E X X O/E X
STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
THOMANN,
DEANNA 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X
VILLANUEVA,
NICOLE 6/30/25 X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X
WAGNER,
FRANK 6/30/23 X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X O/E
WELU-
REYNOLDS,
CHRISTINA
6/30/25 X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E
LEWIS,
ANDREW -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a member