HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-8-2025 HPC agenda packet
Thursday
May 8, 2025
5:30 p.m.
Emma J. Harvat Hall
City Hall
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, May 8, 2025
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. HPC25-0002: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – Woodlawn Historic District (rear demolition and new
addition)- deferred from March 13, 2025 meeting
2. HPC25-0009: 203 North Linn Street – Local Historic Landmark (alteration to front façade) –
deferred from April 10, 2025 meeting
3. HPC25-0016: 834 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (alterations to north
façade)
4. HPC25-0019: 1229 Burlington Street – College Hill Conservation District (deck demolition and
front porch addition)
E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff review
1. HPC25-0010: 717 East Davenport Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District
(siding trim and soffit repair)
2. HPC25-0025: 630 Fairchild Street – Local Historic Landmark (deteriorated front porch
reconstruction)
Minor Review – Staff Review
3. HPC25-0015: 707 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (handrail construction at rear
deck)
4. HPC25-0018: 502 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (garage roof replacement)
5. HPC25-0023: 610 N. Lucas Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (rear deck
replacement)
Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review
HPC25-0020: 803 E. Market Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (commercial
monument sign)
F) Consideration of Minutes for April 10, 2025
G) Commission Discussion
1. Contractor Lists
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 May 8, 2025
Prepared by: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Historic Review for HPC25-2002: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue
General Information:
Applicant/Owner: Karen Leigh, karenleigh804@gmail.com
District: Woodlawn Avenue Historic District
Classification: Contributing
Project Scope: Rear demolition and addition
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.3 Doors
4.7 Mass and Rooflines
4.13 Windows
4.14 Wood
5.0 Guidelines for Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
7.0 Guidelines for Demolition
7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features
Property History:
This two-story house was built in 1891. It has a main gable-on-hip roof with two-story
gabled projections on all four sides. A gabled roof dormer projects from the west side of
the front facing gable. A full width front porch wraps around the west side. A one-story
bay also projects from the west side. A one-story rear open porch on the east side is
mirrored by an enclosed one-story projection on the west side. The house is clad in lap
siding and has elaborate, decorative trim that are suggestive of Stick Style and Eastlake
details. The gable projections have decorative, carved barge boards, with lattice work in
the peaks. Band boards wrap the house at the level of the first and second floor window
heads. Above the second-floor band board the house and gable ends are clad in
scalloped fish-scale shingles. A decorative band of half cove shingles between the first-
floor window heads and the second floor window sills wraps around the south and west
sides of the house. The frieze board at the first floor on the west side differs from the
frieze board found on the rest of the house. The front porch has a triangular pediment
above the entrance and a Chinese lattice frieze, slender turned columns and small
sandwich brackets.
In 1995 the Commission approved the reconstruction of the porch on the Southeast
corner of the house. In 1996 the Commission approved the reconstruction of the roof on
the same porch.
Detailed Project Description:
This project removes the one-story rear portion of the house, known as the canning
shed, and replaces it with a new, slightly larger one-story addition. The addition will
have a rear-facing gable roof similar to the main gables on the house. The siding will be
a lap siding in wood or smooth cement board matching the siding on the house. The
trim will match the rest of the trim. Like the single-story projections on the west side of
the house, the addition will have a frieze board with a vertical, grooved detail. Similar to
the existing second story gables, the gable on the addition will have scalloped fish scale
siding above the band board at the window head height. This south side will have a pair
of windows. In the peak of the gable, the project proposes a triangular window. The east
side will have a pair of half-lite, two panel doors. The west side will have two evenly
spaced windows. The windows will be wood or metal clad wood matching the historic
windows on the house. The addition will be set in slightly from the corners of the house
but the eave overhang will extend beyond them.
Guidelines:
Section 4.3 Doors recommends:
• Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in
the building.
Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends:
• Preserving the original roof pitches and spans.
• Preserving the original walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a
historic building.
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.
• Installing doors in additions that match the material of historic doors, and have a
similar style and appearance as the historic doors in the existing building.
• Installing French doors, or doors of a similar type, in additions where a large
opening is desired.
• Following the guidelines for new doors in section 4.3 Doors.
• Constructing an addition foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation
in color, texture, unit size, and joint profile.
• Constructing additions that are consistent with the massing and roofline of the
historic building. This requires that the wall areas and corners, as well as the roof
pitches and spans are all consistent with the existing building and have a
proportion that is similar to that of the existing building.
• Constructing the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the addition so that they
match the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the existing building. When the
eaves of an addition intersect the eaves of the existing building, care should be
taken to assure that the two eaves align properly. The trim details of a new eave
should match the eave details of the existing building.
• 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.
Section 7.1 Demolition recommends:
• Removing additions or alterations that are not historic and that significantly
detract from the building’s historic character or that are structurally unsound and
are a safety hazard
Analysis:
While the existing one-story rear portion of this house has been in place since before
1920, this portion of the house is unfinished, steps down from the main floor of the
house, and is heavily deteriorated. It also has a different siding and trim configuration
and a different style of window from the rest of the historic house. The application is to
demolish this 14 foot by 16 foot portion and replace it with a 1 6 foot by 18 foot addition
that better fits the architecture of the existing house. Due to the condition of the existing
structure, staff recommends approval of the demolition with approval of the new
addition.
This project came before the Commission in March 2025 and was deferred in order to
provide drawings that accurately depict the proposed project and its relationship to the
existing house. During the March meeting the Commission was receptive to the
proposal to have the addition set in from the corners of the house but not set in far
enough that the eave terminates before the corner. The current proposal sets the
addition in 6 inches on each side. Since the view of the projecting eave will be blocked
by projections on both the east and west sides and the existing pantry eave also
projects beyond the west wall, staff recommends approval of the project with this detail
noting that the corners of the historic house are retained.
The new drawings for the project include both the addition and the existing house. The
application proposes to match the trim style found on the first floor of the west side of
the house where the frieze board is a vertical pattern instead the simple band board
with fish scale above found on the second story. Staff finds this appropriate since this
single-story addition would match the other single-story projections found on the historic
house.
As the drawings show, the proposed addition has an eave height that is lower than
these other one-story projections. The frieze board, window heads, windowsills, door
heads and eaves are all lower in the addition. In staff’s opinion, the addition does not
comply with guidelines in section 5.1 such as:
• Matching key horizontal “lines” on the existing building, such as water table, eave
• height, window head height and band boards,
• Adding new windows in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of
the historic building, and
• Constructing the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the addition so that they
match the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the existing building.
The applicant has submitted examples of additions on neighboring houses that do not
comply with two of these guidelines. These additions were all built either historically, or
prior to the creation of guidelines for review and could be considered aesthetically
inappropriate. Since it is possible to comply with these guidelines without impacting
historic details on the historic house. Staff recommends the drawings are revised so that
the eave and frieze board align with the other existing first floor projections, bringing the
window heads and windowsills up to align with the other first floor windows.
During the application process, it was proposed to use salvaged wood doors. The head
height for the doors shown in the east elevation are significantly shorter than the head
height for the existing doors and windows. Staff recommends this is revised to match
the other openings either by using doors that are as tall as other first floor doors on the
property or by adding a transom to the proposed doors. This will allow the doors to
extend to the frieze board like the historic doors.
As was discussed at the March meeting, the application proposes to install a window in
the point of the gable similar to the gable-on-hip windows on the main portion of the
house. These windows are a particular feature of a gable-on-hip roof that is not typically
found in the peak of a gable roof. In addition, located in the peak of the gable with an
eave overhang of 12-18 inches, a window in this location will provide less light than a
half round window centered on the gable as found in the other gable ends. During the
March meeting, the Commission appeared to be open to considering approval of a
window in this location, so staff did not include its removal as a condition for approval.
The house has a stone rubble foundation. The proposed addition includes a stone -like
façade for the foundation. Staff recommends further information or product submittal for
approval. Similarly, door and window product information has not been submitted for
review.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1025
Woodlawn Avenue as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:
▪ The roof, eave, frieze board, and other elements are brought up to align with the
historic house
▪ Foundation, window and door product information is submitted for approval.
▪ The new door opening is revised to match the height of existing doors.
1025 Woodlawn Avenue – North Façade
1025 Woodlawn Avenue – rear one-story portion to be removed
1025 Woodlawn Avenue – interior of unfinished and deteriorated one-story portion
1025 Woodlawn Avenue – west side of rear of house
1025 Woodlawn Avenue – west side showing first floor frieze.
1025 Woodlawn Avenue – south elevation drawing of addition
1025 Woodlawn Avenue – east elevation drawing of addition
1025 Woodlawn Avenue – west elevation drawing of addition
Sketch plan of new addition showing set in from corners of historic house.
1036 Woodlawn with rear addition constructed prior to 1933
1011 Woodlawn with rear additions constructed prior to 1926
1033 Woodlawn with addition on right approved by HPC prior to the creation of review
guidelines
Staff Report May 8, 2025
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Historic Review for HPC25-0009: 203 N. Linn Street
General Information:
Owners: 203 N Linn St, LLC, peterbyler@gmail.com
Contact person: Michael Nolan, michael@horizon-architecture.com
District: Northside Marketplace Neighborhood
Classification: Local Historic Landmark
Project Scope: Addition of a second entrance along the N. Linn Street facade.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
10.0 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
4.3 Doors
4.10 Porches
Property History:
The building at 203 N. Linn Street is a four-story Mid-19th Century/Greek Revival
building that was built c. 1862. The property was designated as a Local Historic
Landmark in 2014 and a year later was listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
The summary paragraph from section 8 of the National Register Nomination states the
following:
“Union Bakery is locally significant under Criteria A and C as a good
example of the activities of early Iowa City entrepreneurs – especially
those of the resident German immigrant community – and the efforts to
establish and grow successful commercial ventures in a dynamic Midwest
town just a few decades old. It is also significant as a rare surviving
commercial property type in Iowa City, a property type characterized by a
size and scale larger than most of its contemporaries, together with its
19th century brick and stone construction methods and materials, and its
historic lodging and commercial functions in a close-in location. This was
neither a narrow attached storefront catering to retail customers in the
downtown, nor was it an industrial/commercial business sited by its owner
at edge of town where access by rail or wagon would be easy. Rather, the
building was constructed in the midst of mixed residential and retail blocks
where walking was still the major means of getting about town and where
the pedestrians (and therefore potential customers) might be visitors to the
city, or local workers in the nearby breweries, or university students. The
period of significance runs from c. 1862, when the original building was
constructed on the corner of North Linn and East Market Streets, until
1965, the moving 50-year rule of the National Register program. This
period includes the 1893 addition to the original building and
acknowledges the building’s continuing contribution to the evolution of
Iowa City’s commercial life, especially within the vibrant Northside
commercial neighborhood. “(Section 8 page 10)
Background:
On April 10, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission discussed the proposed
project and deferred it to the May meeting agenda. The Commission deferred the item
to provide the applicant more time to revise the proposal to align with the guidelines.
During the Commission’s discussion it was generally noted that 1) there was support for
an eastern entrance, 2) they would like the entrance to look like a storefront entrance, 3)
they preferred the entrance to look similar to the main entrance at the corner of the
building, and 4) they preferred a step configuration like the corner entrance. Since the
April meeting, the applicant has revised the plans to align with the direction provided by
the Commission.
Detailed Project Description:
The applicant has submitted a revised plan set which includes adding a new entrance to
the eastern façade of the building. See Figure 1. Full plan sets are attached.
Figure 1. Proposed Entrance, East Elevation
The revised version shows a new storefront entrance and vestibule which are accessed
by new concrete steps with metal railings. The applicant is working with the Department
of Public Works on the permits required for the steps to be in the public right-of-way.
The new storefront reflects the design of the corner entrance (and the smaller entrance
at the ramp along Market Street) with a full-lite door surrounded by sidelights with
panels below and a three-part transom above. The new entrance is sized to be framed
by the existing brick opening
Guidelines:
Section 10 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial
relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal
of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships
that characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be
undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right
will be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and
physical evidence.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible
with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to
protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Section 4.3 Doors recommends:
• New Doors: Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors
and windows in the building.
Section 4.10 Porches recommends:
• Using wood steps for a wood porch and tile, brick or concrete steps for a
masonry porch.
o Although this guideline is written for residential buildings with porches, it
could be considered a basis for reviewing steps at the entrance into any
type of historic building.
Analysis:
In reviewing the proposed change to the building, staff reviewed the National Register
Nomination to better understand the significance of the building. The nomination notes
that the building is “also significant as a rare surviving commercial property type in Iowa
City, a property type characterized by a size and scale larger than most of its
contemporaries, together with its 19th century brick and stone construction methods and
materials, and its historic lodging and commercial functions in a close -in location.” This
is a large building significant in part due to its scale. It was also noted that it was not a
“narrow, attached storefront.” It’s period of significance spans from 1863 until 1965,
including all changes during that period as part of the architectural significance of the
property.
The building features a corner entrance at Linn and Market at the SE corner of the
building. This entrance reflects the corner entrance of the Union Brewery to the south.
This type of corner entrance is rare in commercial building s of this era in Iowa City.
Many commercial buildings in town are divided into bay s, each with their own separate
entrance and display window. Staff was unable to find any evidence in the research that
the east façade had an entrance other than the corner entrance. It is known, however,
that in the mid-20th century, the existing ground floor window openings were modified,
removing the large windows with traditional wood panel below and replacing them with
small brick panel, limestone sill and window with transom that currently exists.
The applicant originally submitted two different plan sets showing a new eastern
entrance. Staff had concerns with each of these versions for different reasons. In one
version staff had concerns with the location of the opening. In the other version, staff
had concerns that it did not look like a storefront. Staff originally suggested that they
explore adding another entrance to the southern façade; however, it has been
determined that this is not feasible.
The revised plans have incorporated both the direction provided by the Commission and
recommendations from Staff. The revised plans show the entrance in the southern
portion of the north half of the building. This reflects the rhythm of the opening in the
façade where the existing opening is located at the southern corner. Additionally,
changes have been made to the entrance and it now is designed to look like a
storefront.
Other revisions have been made to the proposed entrance so it matches the existing
corner storefront entrance. See Figure 2. These changes include 1) removing the
transom from the exterior wall at the new open vestibule, 2) matching the corner
entrance details such as the trim under the limestone band and ceiling height, 3)
matching the corner entrance door and surround more closely with the sidelights and a
three-part transom, and 4) sizing the storefront so that it is framed by the existing brick
opening so it is fully visible when viewed straight on from the street.
Figure 2. Existing Corner Entrance
Staff has one remaining question on the plan, which is regarding the synthetic trim that
is proposed. Staff requested clarification on the proposed material. A material other than
wood would need to be reviewed and approved by the Commission.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed new
storefront entrance as presented in the application subject to clarification of the
proposed synthetic trim material.
203 N. Linn Street, East Facade – 2024 Google Street View
203 N. Linn Street, South Façade – 2024 Google Street View
Undated photo of the Union Bakery from Marybeth Slonne ger’s book, Finials (the image
has been lightened to show window details).
Staff Report May 8, 2025
Prepared by: Rachael Schaefer, Associate Planner
Historic Review for HPC25-0006: 834 N Johnson St
General Information:
Owners: Timothy Conroy & Anna Conroy
Contact person: John Martinek, jnmartinek@yahoo.com
District: Brown Street Historic District
Classification: Key Contributing
Project Scope: The owner is proposing to enclose a rear covered porch to create
an addition for a bathroom, laundry, and mudroom on the north side
of the home.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.3 Doors
5.0 Guidelines for Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
Property History:
This Greek Revival House is known as Prospect Hill and the Downey-Pickering-
Glasgow House. It is depicted as a lithograph on the 1854 Millar Map but may have
been built as early as the 1840s. The house form is a side gabled single-story house
with a ¾ width front porch with a heavy entablature, four large, fluted, Doric columns,
and central pediment. Prior to 1933 (the date of the first Sanborn map showing the
property) an addition was added to the north side of the house. The addition has a rear-
facing gable and originally had open porticos along its east and west sides. The east
portico has been enclosed with screens.
A 1960s remodel altered the west portico to become the main entry and provide an
appearance of a modern Ranch house. The original south-facing front porch was
destroyed during the winter in 1979. In 2006 the Commission approved the
reconstruction of the front porch and the removal of the exterior Ranch house elements.
This project also enclosed much of the west portico with columns remaining as
elements of the historic configuration.
The house has a stone foundation and wood lap siding with flat casing and some
classical details. Historic windows would have been 6-over-6 double hung windows in
the Greek Revival Style.
Detailed Project Description:
This project involves enclosing the existing open porch space on the north side of the
house to add a bathroom/laundry/mudroom. The area to be enclosed is approximately
7’8” wide by 3’5.5” deep. The existing concrete slab will be removed, and the porch area
will become an interior space with a new foundation (not visible), back door, siding, and
trim.
The new wall will be flush with the existing north wall of the historic home. A new ½ lite
fiberglass door in addition to a ½ lite wood storm door is proposed on the northern
façade of the addition. The door will be located so that the eastern jab trim runs along
the existing trim to match the enclosed porch to the east. The siding will match the
profile of the historic siding. All-primed wood lap siding is proposed. The drawings show
that the existing painted wood trim will remain.
Guidelines:
Section 4.3 Doors recommends:
• Installing wood screen door that accepts sashes with glass or screen.
• Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in
the building.
• Substituting material in place of wood for doors and screen doors only if the
substitute material retains the style and appearance of the historic doors and
screen doors. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be
approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint recommends:
• Designing an addition so that it does not diminish the character of the historic
structure.
• Installing doors in additions that match the material of historic doors and have a
similar style and appearance as the historic doors in the existing building.
• Following the guidelines for new doors in section 4.3 Doors.
• Painting additions to match the existing historic building.
• Applying siding to a new addition that appears similar in size, shape, texture, and
material to the existing siding on the historic building.
• 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 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, enclosing this rear porch is an appropriate opportunity to create an
addition for the bathroom/laundry/mudroom. While the enclosure of a front porch or one
that is highly visible from the street, is disallowed in the guidelines, this porch is on the
rear of the building and not visible from any street. Staff finds that the proposal meets
the historic guidelines.
The application includes elevation drawings of the existing and proposed north elevation
of the home. It also includes plan drawings showing the existing and proposed layout of
the addition area.
Door product information was submitted and meets the historic guidelines. A new ½ lite
fiberglass door in addition to a ½ lite wood storm door is proposed on the northern
façade of the addition. The elevations show that the new door opening will be trimmed
to match the door and trim to the east.
The drawings include a note that there will be primed wood lap siding and trim board
that will be painted to match the existing. Staff finds this information sufficient for this
project. The house currently has wood lap siding and trim. The trim around the new
door will match the trim around the door of the porch to the east. The trim above the
new door will be unchanged.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 834 N
Johnson St as presented in the application.
834 N Johnson St – Existing Sothern Elevation
834 N Johnson St – Existing Northern Elevation
834 N Johnson St – Existing Eastern Elevation
834 N Johnson St – Existing Western Elevation
$716.30716.3012' 8'' x 6' 8'' S6021-ADVFLE Smooth-Star (Advanta Flat Lite Frame) Fiberglass Door
w/Low E Glass - Left Hand Inswing
$19.8819.8812-3/4'' Backset - Double Bore (2-1/8'' Dia. Bore w/Standard 5-1/2'' Spacing) w/Faceplate
Lockset Latch Prep w/Standard Strike Prep w/Deadbolt 9206 Kwikset/Schlage J Series
– Standard 1´´ x 2-1/4´´ Strike Prep
$16.7016.701Set of Standard - Oil Rubbed Bronze Hinges
$420.56420.561White Deluxe Aluminum Clad Frame w/Primed Dura-Frame Interior - 6-9/16'' Jamb
w/Crown Line Exterior Trim (Applied) w/(1)Black Nickel Adjustable Security Strike Plate
(for Lockset only)
$0.000.001Bronze Compression Weatherstrip
$0.000.001Tru-Defense Composite Adj. w/Dark Cap - Mill Finish Sill
$278.25278.251PREFINISH: Paint Door Panel Interior & Exterior FL WHITE
$34.9834.981Tru-Loc Door Anchors - Installed
$1,486.67Item Total
Order Total: $1,590.74
Tax: $104.07
$1,486.67Order Sub Total:
Version #:1.47-O
3/10/2025Version Date:
Distributed by:
834 N Johnson St.
Modern Roots
Iowa City, IA
Quote
Date:Quote Number:4/15/2025
Customer Information
Name:
Address:
Phone 1:
Phone 2:
of1Page 1
Fax:
Specifications
U.D. = 33-1/2'' x 81-5/8''; R.O. = 34-1/4'' x 82''
O.M. of Exterior Trim = 34-5/8'' x 82-3/16''
Image is viewed from Exterior!
Sales Person:Danny Brandt
Job Name:
Lead Time: Call for Lead Time
Contact:
Item Description PriceQty Extended
Staff Report May 8, 2025
Prepared by: Parker Walsh, Associate Planner
Historic Review for HPC25-0019: 1229 E Burlington Street
General Information:
Owner: George Robinson
Applicant: Doug Yansky, yanskycarpentry@gmail.com
District: College Hill Conservation District
Classification: Contributing
Project Scope: Front deck demolition and new front porch addition.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.1 Balustrades and Handrails
4.5 Foundations
4.7 Mass and Roofline
4.10 Porches
5.0 Guidelines for Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
7.0 Guidelines for Demolition
7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features
Property History:
The house at 1229 East Burlington Street is a Late Victorian Cube Cottage that was
built between 1895 and 1905. It is a one-story cottage with a hipped roof, gabled roof
dormers, and a front porch. A one-story hipped rear addition was built prior to 1933 and
had an open porch along the east side. This porch has been enclosed. An enclosed
porch was added to the south end between 1960 and 1983. The partial width front
porch was removed at an unknown date and a full-width deck was built across the front
in 1993. At some point the windows were replaced with some being enclosed or
removed and most of the rest resized. The garage at the alley was built in 1987.
Detailed Project Description:
This project removes the existing deck and proposes to reconstruct a new front porch
addition. The porch will be covered by a new shingled hip roof and include 4”x4”
columns wrapped with cedar wood to measure a full 6 inches by 6 inches. New piers
will be clad in stone to match the house foundation. The porch floor will be composite
tongue and groove flooring. The balustrade will be simple square spindled balustrade
with top and bottom rail. The new stairs will be constructed of wood and include 4 steps
and a handrail along both sides. The porch will have a beadboard ceiling and eave
overhangs that match the main roof White lattice skirting will be used below the porch
on all three sides.
Guidelines:
Section 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails recommends:
• Constructing or replacing missing balustrades by using historic photographs or
by choosing a style that is consistent with the architectural style of the building.
• Installing square spindles that are 1½ inches or greater in width.
• Installing top and foot rails that are at least 2 inches in thickness.
• Providing handrails on porch steps as required by the building code. Handrails
should match the historic balustrade height on the porch unless otherwise
specified by the building code. The handrail must have a continuous member that
can be easily gripped. The handrail should either match the porch balustrade or
be made of round steel pipe.
Section 4.5 Foundations recommends:
• Constructing an addition foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation
in color, texture, unit size, and joint profile.
Section 4.7 Mass and Roofline recommends:
• Constructing additions that are consistent with the massing and roofline of the
historic building. This requires that the wall areas and corners, as well as the roof
pitches and spans are all consistent with the existing building and have a
proportion that is similar to that of the existing building.
• Constructing the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the addition so that they
match the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the existing building. When the
eaves of an addition intersect the eaves of the existing building, care should be
taken to assure that the two eaves align properly. The trim details of a new eave
should match the eave details of the existing building.
Section 4.10 Porches recommends:
• Constructing new porches that are consistent with the historic building or similar
to porches of the same architectural style.
• Constructing new porches that are more than 18 inches above grade using
traditional porch construction with wood joists and wood flooring.
• Adding skirting to fill the space between the porch floor and grade if this space is
18 inches or greater. The skirt must be constructed between the porch piers.
• Using vertical-grained fir porch flooring for its resistance to weathering.
• Leaving exposed the support piers below the porch columns. Skirting must be
added to fill the space below the porch floor and grade if this space is 18 inches
or greater. The skirt must be located between the porch piers.
• Constructing porch skirting using a 3-6 inch wood frame with slats fastened to the
back of the frame in a vertical or lattice pattern.
Disallowed:
• Using unpainted treated wood for elements that would have been painted in their
historic applications.
Section 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint recommends:
• Following the guidelines for new balustrades and handrails
• 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.
• Preserving significant historic materials and features of the original structure such
as decorative windows, brackets, porches, and trim.
• Designing an addition so that it does not diminish the character of the historic
structure.
Exceptions to the guidelines in Section 5.1 that may relate to this project:
• For additions to foundations, concrete or textured concrete block may be used in
place of masonry units that appear similar to the original masonry.
• For additions to foundations, it is acceptable to match the color of the original
foundation by using paint or masonry stain rather than matching the material and
appearance of the original foundation material.
• Pretreated porch decking or dimensional lumber may be used provided the gaps
between the floorboards do not exceed 1/8 inch.
Section 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features recommends
• Removing additions or alterations that are not historic and that significantly
detract from the building’s historic character or that are structurally unsound and
are a safety hazard.
• Removing non-historic buildings and structures that detract from the historic
character of a district.
Analysis:
In Staff’s opinion, the proposal removes a front deck that does not comply with the
guidelines and constructs a front porch addition that will allow the property to increase
its contribution to the conservation district. The proposed porch design reflects historic
porches found on Victorian cube cottages but with more simple details such as straight
balusters and columns. While the guidelines would suggest that the porch columns and
spindles should be turned to match the Victorian details, staff finds that this house has
already lost many of these details or they are covered. So staff recommends an
exception to the guidelines to approve a more simplified design for this porch. The
porch will include a hip roof to match the existing home roof. The balustrades and
handrails will follow the guidelines and include square 1 ½ inch or greater spindles, as
well as top and bottom rails. The piers will match the existing foundation and framed
lattice skirting will be placed between piers on all three sides of the porch. New wood
elements will be painted to match the house. Staff will work with the contractor so that
porch elements, especially piers, columns, and frieze board align properly and comply
with the guidelines to use traditional porch construction.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1229 E
Burlington Street through an exception to the guidelines to allow a more simplified porch
design because of existing modifications to the property.
1229 E Burlington Street – North, Front Façade
410 King William Street, San Antonio, Texas – Northeast, Front Façade
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 10, 2025 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Burford, Andrew Lewis, Ryan Russell, Jordan
Sellergren, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva
MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Wagner, Carl Brown, Christina Welu-Reynolds
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Luke McLeran, Mike Nolan, Peter Byler
CALL TO ORDER:
Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC25-0006: 1221 Sheridan Avenue -Longfellow Historic District (addition and garage conversion):
Russett noted this property is located in the Longfellow Historic District, it is a single story, minimal
traditional home. She next showed an image of the proposed addition, the existing garage, the existing
footprint of the home and then the east elevation of the home which will not be changing as part of this
project. Russett shared the existing west elevation and noted where the applicant is proposing the new
addition to the home, and she shared the plans for the addition. Russett noted the proposal includes
keeping the four original corners of the home and the addition is proposed to be set in from the existing
walls, additionally they are proposing to convert the garage space to living space. The plans also show
that they are incorporating windows that match the type and size of the historic windows in the home.
Russett stated the addition is also simple and formed to compliment the minimal traditional home and
even though the garage is being converted to living space they are keeping the appearance of a garage
door from the exterior and proposing an appropriate new garage door.
Russett next reviewed the guidelines and mentioned the exceptions. Section 3.2 of the guidelines allow
for the Commission to incorporate some flexibility into proposals, and they may consider exceptions for
uncommon situations. Russett explained the intent of exceptions is to allow alternative designs due to
exceptional circumstances. In approving an exception, the Commission must identify the guideline for
which an exception is being made and the rationale for the exception. She stated in this case, in the
guidelines for additions, one of the recommendations is that they place the building addition at the rear
of the property if possible, and Russett stated that is not possible in this in this case so staff is
recommending approval with an exception. The rationale for the exception being that the addition to the
rear is not possible as the home is approximately 10 feet from the southern property line.
Staff is recommending approval of this certificate of appropriateness, as presented in the staff report,
through an exception to the guidelines allowing an addition to the side of the home due to the lot
configuration that does not allow a rear addition subject to two conditions:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 2 of 14
1. Window and door product is approved by staff.
2. Historic siding and trim configuration is documented and reviewed by staff.
Burford asked if the new proposed garage doors are practical, do they open and shut, or are they just
there for appearance. Russett replied that they're there for appearance.
Thomann asked again why the back side of the house would not be sufficient space for the addition.
Russett stated that according to guidelines that the City has for construction they would need to
maintain a five foot setback from the southern property line and the home is approximately 10 feet from
that southern property line so they would only have five feet for an addition, which isn't practical.
Thomann asked if this addition is approximately doubling the size of the house. Russett replied it's less
than double, it is significant, but the house is very small to begin with.
Luke McLeran (1221 Sheridan Ave.) is the homeowner and he and his wife own this home with their
young son who will be two in May. McLeran stated they love the neighborhood and feel like they found
a great place that they love and they hope to watch their son walk to school from there. This addition
just lets them grow their family and continue to grow and stay in a neighborhood that they love so they
hope the Commission will support and help them do that.
Mike Nolan (Horizon Architecture) is the project architect and thinks that the application is pretty
straightforward, and they designed well within the historic preservation guidelines. He did clarify that
they did look at going to the south but they would only be able to get about five feet for the addition and
as Russett pointed out they wanted to preserve the historic four corners of the property and anything
that they did that would move to the south side of the property would pretty much run afoul of the other
massing guidelines for the addition. Nolan noted the property is kind of odd because the frontage off of
Sheridan is pushed further to the side street so there's not really any room to expand, it's almost like
the backyard is a front yard, plus it is a corner lot to deal with. Therefore, they feel like this is the most
historically sensitive way to approach the addition.
Lewis noted the main concern with exceptions is just always making sure that they're not opening up a
door for precedents. Nolan stated he understood but it is technically infeasible to move to the back of
the property.
Thoman asked what year the home was originally built. Nolan replied it was built in 1941.
MOTION: Sellergren moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1221
Sheridan Avenue as presented in the staff report through an exception to the guidelines
allowing an addition to the side of the home due to the lot configuration that does not allow a
rear addition subject to the following conditions: (1) window and door product is approved by
staff and (2) historic siding and trim configuration is documented and reviewed by staff. Beck
seconded the motion.
Burford stated although not preferred, it seems the project is well within the spirit of the guidelines so he
would be in support of it.
Sellergren feels the same way, assuming the exterior elements are matched and approved by staff as
much as possible and given the spirit of exceptions for this specific purpose of the restrictive property
lines, this seems accommodating and understandable.
Thomann noted the charm of the home as it is, it’s a 1941 home and small homes were built around
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 3 of 14
that time. It almost like they’re doubling the size of the home but she realizes this is a this is a difficult
lot and there isn't space in the back.
Villanueva thinks the recommended addition is going to fit in really well and it's going to work
seamlessly with that neighborhood and especially that street so for her that's not a concern, it will fit
with the character of that neighborhood.
Lewis noted a concern that looking at it the garage ends up being in the middle of the house, which
does feel a little odd, it is symmetrical but that’s not where garages tend to go but acknowledged they
are trying to work with a difficult lot and they're doing that to follow the guidelines.
Sellergren stated personal feelings about maintaining an unused garage door simply for appearances
when it could be functional, like a window opening instead.
Russell noted the elevations make it look like there will be three different levels to the front of the
house, the addition isn't equal to the front and the other side of the garage is set farther back. Bristow
noted that the house itself is basically a rectangle with the front gable that projects and then the garage
projects further and the addition will be set in from that main box of the rectangle. Again, the four
corners are preserved just as if the addition were on the back of the house.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
HPC25-0009: 203 North Linn Street - Local Historic Landmark (alteration to front facade):
Russett stated this is a local historic landmark but it’s not within a district. The building is a three story
mid-19th century Greek Revival building that was built around 1862 and it has an addition in 1893 that
more than doubled it. It’s listed in the National Register of Historic Places in addition to being a local
historic landmark. She noted the section of the nomination that outlines the building's significance was
included in the staff report but she also wanted to highlight a few of the items. It's significant as a rare
surviving commercial property type in Iowa City and it's characterized by a size and scale larger than
most of its contemporaries. The nomination notes that it's not a narrow, attached storefront catering to
retail customers in the downtown, and it's also not an industrial or commercial business located at the
edge of town, where access by rail or wagon would be common. Instead, is located near mixed
residential and retail blocks where walking was the primary means of getting around.
The owner is proposing to add a secondary entrance along the North Linn Street facade. Some of the
goals from this application include breaking up the size of the commercial space into two commercial
spaces on the first floor. Another goal is to renovate the residential units that occupy the second and
third story of the building. Russett next shared the two set of plans the applicant provided. In version
one the new storefront would be along the eastern North Linn Street façade and is accessed through
concrete stairs and a landing. The new door would lead into an interior vestibule with access to the
commercial space and access to the residential units above via stairs. Based on the renovations that
are envisioned for the second and third story, the residential units would require another access so they
have added a staircase. Russett shared the elevations noting the new entrance proposed at the center
of the north half of the building, and the storefront is proposed in the center of that addition. In version
two the proposed secondary entrance is shown with steps leading directly to a vestibule, also on North
Linn Street, but the vestibule is not enclosed and exposed to the outside. She noted it's also in a
different location on the facade. From this vestibule, there would be again access to the commercial
space and then access to the residential units on the second and third floor via a staircase. With
version two, the location of the new entrance aligns with the rhythm of the facade and the corner
entrance more so than the first version.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 4 of 14
In review of this application staff requested that the applicant explore modifying the southern facade
along Market Street. This was requested this for a couple of reasons, first they know that the southern
facade has been altered so alterations to the southern facade could include a new storefront door and
new windows to bring light into the space. There's also an existing ramp that staff thought could
potentially be used for an accessible entrance. Staff met with the applicant earlier this week and he
expressed that the southern facade was not an option and he can share those details later with the
Commission. Another reason staff wanted them to explore the south is that they didn't find any
evidence that a second storefront ever existed on the east facade. Based on the Sanborn Maps they
know that two uses did exist on the first floor however both uses could have been accessed through
that corner entrance. Russett showed the Sanborn Map from 1899 which showed a bakery there and
then a restaurant to the north noting they would access the restaurant through the bakery, through an
opening in the wall. Similarly, that was the case when it was a hotel in the 1920s.
The guidelines used for this review are the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. Some
things to keep in mind as they consider this application include the new use should require minimal
changes to distinctive material, removal of distinctive material should be avoided, distinctive features
should be preserved, and exterior alterations will not destroy historic material or features. Russett also
wanted to note, similar to the last item, the Commission does have the ability to consider exceptions to
the guidelines for uncommon situations. She also wanted to note that staff sees many benefits to this
project, the applicant would be working to get the first-floor commercial space occupied with new
businesses and staff has heard from the Downtown District that larger commercial spaces are
especially difficult to lease because people need smaller spaces and this would create two smaller
spaces that may be easier to lease than one large space. The applicant is also looking at renovating
the second and third floor and converting the single room occupancy units to actual dwelling units on
the second and third floor and providing another egress to get in and out of the building in case of an
emergency. However, staff does have some outstanding questions that they would like some time to
work through with the applicant. If the Commission is open to another storefront along North Linn Street
staff could work with the applicant and make some modifications to the versions. There are also some
improvements that are going to need to be made in the right of way to provide access to the building
because the staircase and the landing would be in the public right of way which needs to be approved
by the Public Works department. Then, depending on the direction the applicant goes, the access to
the storefront may need to be accessible so that's something that staff would like to work through as
well. Therefore, staff is requesting that this item be deferred to work through items and also for them to
get some feedback on how the Commission feels about an additional storefront on North Linn Street
and considering an exception so staff can work with the applicant on that moving forward.
Sellergren asked if there are currently residences up on the second and third floor. Russett replied yes,
she would describe it as single room occupancy and not technically dwelling units with bathrooms and
kitchens. There's no kitchen and it’s just shared bathrooms and living space. Sellergren asked if a new
entrance is required. Russett stated that the understanding from the City’s building department is yes.
Russell noted he has eaten in the restaurant that was there before, and the one before that, so the
information about smaller spaces are easier to lease is coming from the Downtown District. Russett
confirmed that was correct.
Peter Byler (203 N. Linn Street) is the owner and is also the wood shop teacher at City High School.
He and his wife were able to buy this building a couple months ago and are requesting an approval of
the second entrance tonight. He shared some slides of their building and gave a little bit of the history.
Like Commissioner Russell said it had been the restaurants Goosetown and Northside and then going
all the way back it was the Union Bakery and Tap and connected to the brewery across the street. It's
been several other bakeries and always affordable units for rent upstairs when it wasn't a hotel. Byler
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 5 of 14
stated he is also privileged to own two other buildings in this block so it is a very special block to him
and his wife and they intend to be very long term owners and stewards of this property. He next shared
an idea of what would be going in upstairs. Without a second egress he is allowed to put four units
upstairs. To keep the historical spirit of the building alive they're trying to put as many small studio
apartments in as possible and therefore are going to renovate it to be seven small studio units on each
floor. Byler noted their goal is that people who live there now will still be able to live there. Currently
they have people who wait tables at the Bluebird and cook pizzas at Pagliai’s that live there now and
hope that they can still live there when they are done with renovations. However, they need to make it
a modern building in some regards, including each unit having its own bathroom and kitchen. He stated
by code once they go above four units, they need to have two egress exits and they have to be
separated by a certain distance. The interesting thing about this building is when it was added onto the
brick north wall of the original building remains and in the attic they are able to look at the old building.
The old roof is still there, the old wall is still there, so the only way to get a staircase through that is to
go parallel to the hallway. That also works best because it takes the least amount of living space away.
To go parallel to the hallway they end up having to come out on Linn Street. If they don't have the
ability to add that second egress they are still going to renovate the building, or someone will renovate
the building, but they will only be able to put four units in, two units on the second floor and two units on
the top floor, and those will be four bedroom, four bathroom luxury student condos like everywhere else
in town. Byler stated they want to try to honor the history of the building, which is not luxury student
apartments and by adding 14 units upstairs their total resident load will not go down nearly as much
and they can rent to people who work in the neighborhood. On the commercial level, the reason that
the south facade does not work is if they try to divide the space with a wall going that way there is the
kitchen to work around. When they added on to the building, they added the L shape and put a
basement under the whole section to the north, but they didn't excavate the rest and its above grade.
Therefore, that kitchen is 18 inches higher and there are two ramps to get out of the kitchen. If they
tried to make that the front of one of the businesses, they would have to go in and re-excavate the
building and take it down to the level of the street outside. Otherwise to move the kitchen, moving all of
the plumbing and all of the electrical would be hundreds of 1000s of dollars, just moving the vent hood
would probably cost $100,000. This kitchen has always been there since this was added onto in 1892,
while they are doing some abatement work they can see where the original flu stacks were in the floor
and where the original ovens were. Therefore, historically it makes sense to divide it down the original
line, down the original wall that was always there and economically it's the only way that makes sense.
What they would end up with is a staircase that's running down the dividing wall, connecting third floor
to second floor to first floor, and then right out on the Linn Street.
Byler continued with a little bit of the history to again note why other openings aren't feasible. He
pointed out Don’s Central Tap and the windows that used to exist. Those windows aren't there
anymore, because there is a beautiful flower shop that was built right next to it. That flower shop,
Willow and Stocks is not a separate building, it shares their wall. So again, one option is for the opening
is a swing-out door that's flush to the front, it has to be a swing-out door for egress. If they have a
swing-out from the flush facade, they have to have a landing outside and they are very limited on the
amount of right of way they have. They're also limited on their swing and are locked into this railing and
staircase down to the side, which is fine and he thinks is going to look really cute on their building.
Option number two is matching the idea of the stairs they already have, which is a recessed door and
the landing would be within the building envelope, and then the stairs coming down would again look
just like the stairs that are already there.
Byler next wanted to talk about fitting into the neighborhood and the shared history. This building and
the building right across the street are the two remaining buildings from the brewery era in Iowa City.
The Union Brewery building with its beautiful grand corner staircase, which wasn't always there but was
brought back, and they have a second door just like he is wanting a second door. That second door
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 6 of 14
isn't used currently, but that door is in their facade and no one walks by the Union Brewery and
wonders if it is one building or two buildings, it's obviously one beautiful building with two entrances off
of Linn Street, one's just not currently used. On the Market Street side the Union Brewery has a number
of entrances, and all of them are the style that Byler is describing where the stairs sweep out from the
building instead of turning immediately with a railing, they all sweep right out onto the sidewalk on
Market Street. He shared an image of the Union Brewery building in the 1970s before they made it look
historic, in this image they can see they didn't have the corner stairs nor the other door. They had
replacement windows, just like the building he owns has replacement windows. They went back in and
put in windows that look historic, door that look historic and the beautiful corner entrance. The reason
Byler’s building is a little more constrained is because of the public right of way. Byler also stated Ron
Knoche does not get into designing the right of way with applicants before Commission approval and
that's why he hasn't approved it. Byler talked with Knoche yesterday and he said it shouldn't be a
problem he just doesn't give the approval because he doesn't want to waste his time if the Commission
goes the other way. Byler showed the right of way and the sidewalk in the right of way in front of his
building at the corner, the sidewalk then shifts across Market Street, it shifts two feet to the west and
the walking part of the sidewalk along Linn Street shifts. Because it shifts two feet they have to stay off
of that sidewalk and obviously can’t impinge on the sidewalk so they need to get up and off of the
sidewalk elevation and into their building in a hurry, which is why they need to set their door back. They
can't have the landing out because then they're out of space.
Byler showed the view that will be seen on Linn Street, there will be the steps up that will go into what
will once again be a bakery. They have people lined up who are going to operate a bakery in this
space, if they're able to split it. They also have people that are very excited to lease the other side, but
he can't say too much about that yet. Where the bushes are is where they want to add a matching
staircase with a matching set of recess doors and the stairs would match the other stairs coming down
to the right of way again, staying off the sidewalk. Byler stated again, economically without this
entrance they are going to end up with four luxury student condos upstairs and a bar in the commercial
space because the only people that can afford big commercial spaces in Iowa City are people that sell
alcohol. They don’t want to go that direction, they want a bakery because that's what it was originally
and it'd be neat to bring it back.
A little note about recessed doors, Byler stated when one walks down their favorite strips in Iowa City,
every door is recessed, they are recessed because they can't swing a door out into the sidewalk. He
showed an image of the Park House Hotel building, which is just a block away from his building, and
the Park House building is the same vintage of building. Their main front door is recessed three feet
back into the building as well, the door swings out and one comes down the stairs. So for Byler’s
building to do this would not look out of place at all in Iowa City or in the neighborhood.
Byler acknowledged he could talk about this building forever, to tell all the history. There's an elevator
in Brewery Square, or what used to be an elevator now they use a ladder, but halfway down to the beer
caves there's a strange cut out in the wall that was to get the kegs across the street to the tap without
being taxed or later when it was illegal. They intend to try to see where it used to go and maybe
someday that'll be a neat historic tour feature of the neighborhood. In closing Byler wanted to state it
costs him about $25,000 a month in lost rent for a delay so he’s asking for a decision at this meeting.
They will stay within the confines of the Secretary of Interiors guidelines to the letter, to the 10th degree
and they are happy to bring back the materials and show everyone but he needs to know that he can
put another entrance on this street because it completely changes the business plan for every level of
this building if he can't put another entrance on Linn Street. Again, it’s a choice between four luxury
student condos and a lounge or a bakery and a neat little shop next to it and 14 affordable units
upstairs. That's the reality.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 7 of 14
Mike Nolan (Horizon Architecture) noted Byler did a fantastic job of lining out the why of this building,
and the passion behind it and one of the things that highlights why this is a historic landmark and why it
is an enduring historic structure is because it's been able to maintain its viability throughout time. Over
time it has expanded, it started as a small building on the corner, then got wrapped around when the
other buildings came about, and then and now served as a boarding house. They are basically looking
to bring it into the 21st century the best way they can trying to find the most sensitive ways of bringing
up to modern codes, modern standards, to meet egress, to meet all of the life safety and protection and
to maintain economic viability. Nolan stated they do a lot of historic work around the state and with
other cities so they are very familiar with the Secretary of Interiors historic preservation guidelines. He
noted it’s a little bit different than the City's historic guidelines as basically the Secretary of Interiors is
kind of a framework for how they want us to address properties, and then there's another portion of
that, the preservation briefings. Nolan next discussed how they developed the project. Looking at the
project he didn’t think that they were asking for an exception he thinks that they're well within the
historic guidelines. So they have put together, point by point starting under analysis, a few things they
wanted to address that they just don't necessarily agree with the way that it was presented by staff and
to give an alternate or a little bit of different context. First is these facades and the openings have been
altered, Nolan doesn’t agree with that for a couple reasons. One is they don't know what was there
because there are no historic photographs available of this building. Byler has spent several times at
the historic preservation and there's nothing to show what happened with that building. Additionally, as
Nolan looked at the images of the east side elevations, he noted they can see a difference of the
original brick, which has a distinctive pattern and surface texture to it, and then at the bottom there's
actually a different color on the mortar and a different color of the brick. The original bricks are an
original eight inch full brick and the bricks down at the bottom are a seven and a half inch brick, clearly
filled in at a later date. So obviously it has been altered at some point in the past and not part of the
historic portion of the building.
Next, looking at the Sanborn Maps there is a note that was referenced for the Sanborn Map stating that
there was never an entrance on the east side of the building. Nolan doesn’t think they can say that
equivocally. Looking at the Sanborn Maps there's a couple of references on here that's actually telling
the type of construction of the building, and that shows up in a couple of different places. So they can't
say equivocally from the Sanborn Maps that there never was an entrance on the east side of the
building, they can't say that there wasn't one especially given the fact that there's been some entrances
and changes to the store fronts, so it's entirely possible that there was at some point. Then the staff
report cites Section 10, there's one through six and a couple that are left out and then number nine.
One of those historic guidelines omitted, he thinks it's number eight says exterior and interior alterations
to a historic building are generally needed as part of a rehabilitation project to ensure its continued use.
The guidelines understand that from time to time historic buildings do need to be altered and changes
can be appropriate when done in that manner. So again, Nolan doesn’t think that they're looking at an
exception, they’re just looking at how they adhere to the guidelines based off of the preservation briefs.
Section number four, altering the east facade with the second storefront would have a negative impact
in historical character and significance of the building. As they look at the building, some of the concern
is if they put another storefront on there are they going to look at tall, narrow storefronts. What they see
across the east facade of this building in particular is a pattern of opacity and bays that's either the
window or the opening on the corner. With option number two by recessing back they can see that the
door is kind of obscured in shadow, they're looking to push that door back, keep the transom and
minimize the impact of that door. The pattern does not get interrupted in the vertical whatsoever and
the continuous building still maintains its shaping, massing and character. As Byler discussed they’d
love to just keep the exterior exactly the way it is but there are forces on the interior, the adaptive reuse
and the renovation of the building, and current building codes that are pushing them to a direction
where they have to do some of these interventions. They did look at the southern facade but one of the
big concerns is that brick wall. If they could bring a stairway out the other side, in addition to the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 8 of 14
disruption of the current space and the use on the first floor, it would be then further damaging the
historic character the building and historic assemblies by having to get into that brick wall that's in
between the original buildings. And again, number six the rhythm of the openings, they’re not doing
anything to adjust the rhythm of the openings, the spacing, things along that line, if anything they’re
being the most sensitive they can to get the current needs and the modern needs of the building and
bring up the economic viability of the building. They are looking at very minimal intervention, they will be
happy to salvage material, but they are proposing minimal intervention on the exterior the building that
would be 100% reversible some point down the road.
Nolan reviewed the guidelines that were cited. One, there are minimal changes to distinctive material
features, spaces and spatial relationships. They are right in line with guideline number one. Historic
character will be properly retained and preserved. They're trying to keep the historic character and
historic function so Nolan believes they are in line with guideline number two and no exception is
required. Property is a character of physical time and place, he doesn’t think they're talking about
anything false by adding another entrance here, they’re not saying that the building wasn't commercial,
they're not saying anything different with that so they don’t need exception to number three. Four,
retain to preserve and by keeping the building functional viable they are preserving the character of the
building and are caring that for the future. Distinctive material, finish and construction techniques will
be preserved, absolutely the only thing that they're looking to take out is a small strip of non-historic
brick, and they can certainly preserve and keep that wood trim if somebody wants to use that in the
future. Six, deteriorated features will be repaired rather than replaced. Nolan noted the building is in
good condition so again he doesn’t think that's applicable with what they're asking to do here. Finally,
nine that additional alterations will not destroy historic materials. Nolan stated they are not destroying
any features, again they are doing moderate intervention and they'll be happy to retain any of that trim.
They’re looking at that balance of the historic preservation guidelines understanding that from time to
time changes to the building need to be made to continue to be part of the City’s stock of housing.
Again he would argue that they don't require an exception, they really would just like an up or down
vote so they can move forward. Regarding Byler’s point about talking to Public Works, they don't
typically look at that right of way until they know it is going to be a viable project moving forward. The
same thing with the accessibility, they’ve had some preliminary conversations with the building
department, which is really under their purview, and have a viable path forward on that so he doesn’t
think that is something that should necessarily hold up an up or down vote from the Historic
Preservation Commission.
Sellergren asked what are the accessibility options that they have in place. Nolan noted getting into
existing building code, if he were to build a new building, he would need to have 60% or greater of the
entrances to be accessible. For historic structures there is a little bit of leeway from that. Part of this
project is on the south side of the building where there's an existing ramp. On the west side of the
building they’re going to create an alternate accommodation at the alley level, where the grade is much
closer and essentially create an accessible entrance at that shared corridor on the back of the building.
Byler explained in the alley they have an easement to access the building so they’re going to turn what
is like a back door now, which is basically where the cook would leave and smoke, that will be turned
into an actual entrance, with a true glass door, into a spot where one can get into both commercial
spaces, it is a shared hallway because they will have shared bathrooms. He stated for the residential
units there's no way to roll to the residential units, there's a huge staircase and they’re going to add
another staircase. A question for the building department will be do they need to make a ramp out there
just to get to a set of stairs, it doesn't make any sense and there are exceptions in the historic building
code for not doing that, but they will work through that with the building department.
Thomann asked Nolan if he is in agreement that doing an entrance on the south side is not feasible.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 9 of 14
Nolan stated to satisfy the requirement for separation distance there's not really a viable way for that
stair to come down through there and meet that separation distance without basically destroying the
building. So no he does not think there's a viable option to come out the south side of the building. To
get into the technical details of building code, once someone gets into a protected means of egress, so
once someone gets into this stairway, they need to be in a one hour rated enclosure so that if there's
fire on either side they can get safely out of the building. If they were to wrap around to the west,
because they did consider that, they wouldn't be able to use this hallway for anything other than that
egress access which is just really not a viable option with the way the building set up.
Lewis asked if they could have a hallway that goes along the east side, that exits out. Byler explained
it’s not just putting a door in, like any new Kum & Go they see through the glass they just a dry wall and
if they did that it would have to be a continuously one hour fire rated wall and they would have to build a
wall to get that hallway out the door required and there is no exception to the building code in that
regard.
Lewis stated to do what Nolan is describing would lose the visual from Linn Street into this space which
would destroy the value of the commercial space and they can't put windows or anything on that wall to
look through to improve the visual aspect without actually having to put an entrance on the side of the
door or on the side of the building. Nolan stated they could put a four foot wide hallway across there
but would have to deal with another window and do a whole bunch of stuff and if they wanted to put
glass in there it would have to be fire rated glass which means they could spend $100,000 on this
hallway, which would just crush the value of this commercial space.
Beck stated she is very sympathetic to the argument that delays are expensive but it should be obvious
that they really respect and trust staff guidance so when the recommendation is for deferral for more
time, whether it's time to consider alternatives to the new entrance or time to revise what that new
entrance would look like, she’d like to hear a little bit more on what that extra time might do. Does staff
have some further changes, it sounds like even if the Commission approves the exception there are
some further changes that they would like to see to the design of the additional door.
Russett showed a slide with both versions side by side and on version two staff liked the entrance in
that location and in version one it's in a different location. One of the issues is they have two plan sets,
so if they can modify version two to actually look more like version one and have it look more like a
storefront door as opposed to an interior vestibule, that's one thing that they would want to work on.
She acknowledged with Public Works there is kind of a chicken and egg thing and who gets the
approval first, but she would like to have some understanding of what type of access is needed and if
it's feasible to maintain that five foot sidewalk that Byler talked about in his presentation with the
landings that they're proposing. Russett feels with a little bit more time they can come back with a
positive recommendation, they just want some more time to tweak a few things.
Lewis asked if that positive recommendation was based on the fact they're ignoring version one. Byler
explained he was trying to replace version one because the window is actually not the same size and
one of the reasons they moved the door to this location is they wanted the bigger existing opening.
And then to Nolan’s point, it's going to be shaded so in keeping with the look of the building it's actually
important to move the door back and have that vestibule, because nowhere else on the facade is there
a door exactly like what they had here. If the concern is that these doors need to be shifted left or right
to make it look less like two doors and more like one door, they will make that work 100%. As he said,
they will do whatever the Commission needs him to do to make this work but the facts remain they’re
not changing any of the massing, any of the vertical elements, any of the horizontal elements all they're
doing is adding the stairs and taking out a piece of glass and some non-historic brick.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 10 of 14
Thomann noted the biggest asset of this space is its space and not chopping it up and making money
here and making money there. It seems like that's the biggest asset of this building. The Icon building,
the sister building, it seems like they have enhanced what was already there, they got awards for
preservation, they weren't about changing what was there but enhancing what was there and making
the old shine. This building is 163 years old and from the evidence seen that east facade hasn't
changed which is miraculous, it’s the same facade that they saw 163 years ago. This was built during
the Civil War, it’s a landmark and it’s on the National Register of Historic Places.
Byler stated this building is not from the Civil War, half of the building is from the Civil War, where this
door is going was added 35 years afterwards. They're putting back a wall on the interior that was there
until the 1980s, the space was divided by a big brick wall. With the demo they're doing they can see the
steel beam in here that was put in in the 1980s holding up the bricks on the top two levels. That brick is
the original brick wall, which was the outer wall of the original building. It was two spaces until the
1980s and it's been posited that you got from one space to the other by entering and walking through.
They also know that the bricks along the bottom are not original so the openings have been modified.
When it was Goosetown it was a really cool space but it’s a big space and only a certain kind of
business can survive, they’re not in this to make a ton of money, they are just about capital
preservation for themselves, they don't raise rents of the tenants more than CPI, and if they make
enough money in a given year they don't raise the rents at all. They are not money grubbing landlords,
and this isn't about creating more rent it is about letting the business tenants succeed, because the only
business tenants that can succeed in this space, unless they just give it away, are serving alcohol.
Thomann doesn’t agree with that either and has faith that there's somebody out there. Looking at the
sister building, Icon, it feels like they've preserved that open feel, and it's not a bar, it's there for
education and arts and this space could be that too. She loves the idea of a bakery and they don’t have
a say about the interior but what’s happening on the exterior is just another extension of chopping up
historic space, and it doesn't sit right with her.
Byler respects that but comes back to the fact that they cannot touch anything in the building. They
cannot touch the residences, they're rooms with one shared toilet for 10 people, they can't touch any of
that without letting them get out onto Linn Street so they’re trying to minimize the effect of all of that. If
they had a great tenant who wants to run an art or an educational school there that’s be great but they
don’t.
Sellergren asked what some of Byler’s other properties are. Byler stated on Linn Street they own 211
and 213 which is where the Sacred Collective, a nonprofit is. Between that is Willow and Stock, Brix,
and then there is the building that may be developed into a store and bistro. Across the alley Byler said
they bought that building and are going to be turning over tenants because they’re developing another
property that will better fit the commercial tenant in that building, who's a friend of theirs in Iowa City.
That's what they own on Linn Street and they also own a few townhomes on the east side but are
selling those currently to finance the renovation here.
MOTION: Sellergren moves to recommend deferral of this application to allow staff and the
applicant time to revise the plans to align with the guidelines. Villanueva seconded the motion.
Sellergren wanted to comment that of the two options the exterior presentation of option two is better
but the way the doors are set in is worse so if the staff prefers a combination of the two, with the front
facing three sided stairway with the option one door so the two doors aren't visible. She feels some
combination of that would be much less jarring.
Lewis likes the version making it to look like a storefront, even if they're walking into a vestibule with
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 11 of 14
two different doors that go one or the other. Lewis noted it is a bit like what is seen at The Paper
Crane, where you walk in and you go one of each way to get to the two different places.
Villanueva asked what would match on the sister building across the street, because they had similar
entrances across the street.
Thomann stated she walks by this stretch all the time and lives very close to it. Tonight she took a look
at the sister building and the openings that are there and those seem like in the past, it was maybe
meant for heavy deliveries, the kegs or whatever and it was not a door that pedestrians were using. It
looks like they're just wooden doors meant to swing out get something in and then close up. There are
no stairs leading up to those doors. She stated they do need to think about back in the day when this
building was built walking was still the major means of getting about town and they can argue that that's
still the case today for this area of town, there are pedestrians through there all the time and how might
this interrupt the flow.
Russell would say the same thing's true when the patio furniture is out there with the restaurants, it just
makes the sidewalk even smaller so it's not taking up any more space than it's already taken up
Sellergren stated her opinion is if it looks really good and it's structurally sound, and the interior
changes 400 times between now and when the building falls down, the world ends, or whatever, an
additional entrance is not going to be the end of the world. In following the guidelines, working with staff
to make sure that the materials and the presentation is consistent with what it should be, but in terms of
altering the use or adding more pedestrian movement she doesn’t personally see an issue with those
things. Whether the space is divided into two spaces or changed back into a single space in the future,
the door would stay. She thinks there are so many elements to this issue and she maybe doesn’t have
all the information she needs but all the things considered, the affordable housing, the code
requirements, and then in terms of creating something that they can't then remove in the future, a door
that looks beautiful, that's very well done, would not be the end of the world.
Burford stated he can see the practical need for that egress entrance and a plus for him is that it would
be potentially restorable at some future date if someone wanted to go back and undo the door. He
would be supportive of version two so that it looks like one door going into one building.
Thomann is concerned and feels like there's a disconnect between hearing a door on the south side is
not possible, but then hearing from staff a door on the south side is possible. Russett clarified staff did
not determine that a door on the south side is possible, it was just a comment to the applicant if they
explored that south facade.
Villanueva noted if it's not going to be a usable building without that door, what does it be, what does it
do to the City because this is an issue where places are getting priced out and they're leaving and
they're just staying vacant. So if there's a solution to bring in local businesses to these areas that
everyone will love to visit and also still protect the historic property they should approve it.
Sellergren agrees they do have to consider progress, what the economy looks like, what people are
willing and able to pay in this town, and how the downtown is currently looking with people being
evicted left and right because rents are being raised so high and storefronts being vacated by original
tenants and replaced with vape shops. That's the worst fate she could imagine on this corner. They
have the opportunity to create a more community focused, smaller space here that's highly functional,
and then also could be reverted back to a larger space if needed.
Russell stated the space has been empty for how many years and if there was a bakery it would attract
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 12 of 14
more people to that community. It is a great space, but there's only like three places to go to when you
get there because the Webster is not somewhere you just can walk into so he is inclined to say yes if
they figure out the door situation, which he likes option two with the stairs.
Lewis likes the option of making more spaces but doesn’t necessarily agree with the threat of a bar. He
agrees with the fact that it has been empty for a while and it would be nice if something was there right
now and having more access to that would be fine, as long as it is something that is version two and
looks like it is one door that goes into the building.
Lewis noted it sounds like they are inclined to say yes to an entrance there, if it follows the guidelines
and everything gets approved so what does that mean right now, do they want to defer this and wait for
a plan?
Sellergren would go with the staff approval to defer, but it's assuming that staff will work with the
applicant on what was discussed tonight.
Beck wanted to go on record as supporting an edited door.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer was passed 7-0.
Byler noted moving forward is problematic because half of Commission said that they wanted the steps
flowing out and others said they wanted the door right at the facade and they can't have both of those.
Sellergren stated maybe there's a couple different options presented to staff and overall the
Commission is in favor of this project, it seems interesting and it seems helpful.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review:
HPC25-0008: 538 S Gilbert Street - Local Historic Landmark (repair and replacement of exterior wood
elements):
Bristow stated this is Close mansion and some of the wood trim around the window and around the
front entry canopy is deteriorated so they will be replacing that.
Minor Review – Staff Review:
HPC24-0041: 930 E College Street- College Hill Conservation District (basement egress window):
Bristow noted this house had the porch reconstructed last year and now they're making an egress
window. She did state the top of the egress window well will match the brick on the house.
HPC25-0007: 431 S Summit Street- Summit Street Historic District (replacement of first floor asphalt
shingles with metal roof):
This roof will be replaced from what is some kind of a bitumen or rolled rubber roofing to a standing
seam metal roof.
HPC25-0012: 220 S Johnson Street-College Green Historic District (replacement of flat porch roof):
This porch roof is going to be replaced with a rubber membrane roof.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 13, 2025:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2025
Page 13 of 14
MOTION: Sellergren moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
March 13, 2025, meeting. Russell seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Work Plan Update:
Bristow stated she will start on the map updates.
Sellergren noted her last meeting will be July of this year and then there's going to be an at-large
vacancy.
ADJOURNMENT:
Villanueva moved to adjourn the meeting. Beck seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 pm.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2024-2025
NAME
TERM
EXP. 5/22 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/9 2/13 3/13 4/10
BECK,
MARGARET 6/30/27 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X
BROWN,
CARL
6/30/26 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X X O/E
BURFORD,
KEVIN 6/30/27 --- --- X X X X X X X O/E X X
LEWIS,
ANDREW 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
RUSSELL,
RYAN 6/30/27 --- --- O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X
SELLERGREN,
JORDAN 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X
STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
THOMANN,
DEANNA 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X
VILLANUEVA,
NICOLE 6/30/25 X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X
WAGNER,
FRANK 6/30/26 X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X O/E
WELU-
REYNOLDS,
CHRISTINA
6/30/25 X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X O/E
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a member